Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Budget which I submitted to this House in March, 1969, I introduced some far-reaching reforms in our tax structure, based largely upon the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa. Since then the Commission has substantially completed its work, but its final reports have not yet been officially submitted and cannot yet be made available to the House, nor indeed have I had the opportunity to study all their recommendations in detail. Full consideration of the Commission’s final reports will therefore have to stand over for a later Budget.

I can tell the House, however, that the Commission fully supports the view, implicit in my previous Budgets, that in the modern world the Budget must be looked upon as an important instrument of economic policy, which should be used to promote sustainable economic growth in the prevailing economic conditions and which must be adapted, from time to time, so as to serve this purpose more effectively.

The Budget remains, however, primarily a programme for the Government’s revenue and expenditure for the year, and as such it must take account of other factors (besides the short-term trends of the economy. It is the duty of the Government firstly to provide protection against external and internal aggression and to preserve law and order, and secondly to make adequate provision for those essential facilities which, by their nature, can only be provided by the State. In these matters the Government must take the long view. To illustrate I need only remind the House that the year 1970 has been designated in South Africa as the Water Year, and that, in the provision of water, we must take account of the needs, not only of the next decade, but of coming generations. As King Solomon said: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

Nevertheless, and more particularly on the revenue side, the prevailing economic climate is an important factor in the framing of the Budget, and I shall therefore start, as usual, with a brief survey of current economic conditions.

The Internal Economic Situation

There have been a number of official statements on economic developments in South Africa during 1969 and the earlier part of 1970, notably the statement issued by the Prime Minister two weeks ago after the recent meeting of the Economic Advisory Council. I shall therefore not spend much time on the earlier period and shall concentrate more particularly on the most recent trends in the economy. Earlier developments are, in any event, fully described in the White Paper which I shall lay upon the Table.

As the House is aware, the economy tended to grow more slowly during the last quarter of 1969 and the first quarter of 1970, which was not unexpected in view of the very high rates of growth in the second and third quarters of 1969. According to the latest national accounts statistics, however, this slowing down in economic growth appears to have been short-lived, and the indications are that there was a further upward movement during the second quarter of 1970. In fact, for the 12 months ended June, 1970, the real gross domestic product increased at an exceptionally high rate of almost double that of the preceding year, though this comparison is affected by the relatively slow growth of the agricultural sector, owing to unfavourable weather conditions, in 1968-’69. If agriculture is excluded, the real gross domestic product rose by 6 per cent in the year ended June, 1970, or only slightly below the 1968-’69 figure of 6½ per cent.

The increased economic activity stemmed from substantial increases in all the major components of gross domestic expenditure, but the outstanding feature is the very high rate of increase in consumption expenditure. Private consumption expenditure rose by about 11 per cent, and current expenditure by public authorities by about 14 per cent during the year ended June, 1970—approximately the same rates as in the preceding year. The most important element in the increase in current expenditure by public authorities was a rise of 15 per cent in the remuneration of employees in the public sector. In the case of private consumption expenditure, that on durable goods rose by about 17 per cent, on services by about 11 per cent, and on non-durable goods by about 9 per cent. It is interesting to note that expenditure on motorcars rose by no less than 22 per cent.

Total fixed investment increased by 10 per cent during the year ended June, 1970, compared with an increase of 7 per cent during the preceding year. There was an increase of 8 per cent in fixed investment by public authorities, and of no less than 31 per cent in that by public corporations, which are important contributors to manufacturing output in South Africa. Private fixed investment rose by 7 per cent, which is markedly higher than the increase of between 1 and 2 per cent in the preceding year. Most of this investment, however, was in buildings and construction, while investment in plant, machinery and equipment was relatively sluggish. Fixed investment in private manufacturing industry showed little change but was still in the neighbourhood of R350 million per annum.

Inventories increased during the year ended June, 1970 by about R450 million, compared with only R70 million in the preceding year. This increase, which was especially notable in industrial and commercial stocks, is important also in relation to the balance of payments, to which I shall refer later.

There was, regrettably, only a relatively small increase in domestic saving, and personal saving appears to have shown an actual decline.

The consumer price index, as adjusted by the Reserve Bank, increased by 4.1 per cent during the year ended June, 1970, and even if the influence of the sales duty is excluded the increase was still 4 per cent. This unsatisfactory development was mainly due to a rise in the cost of housing and related items, medical services, and vegetables and fruit.

Balance of payments

The increased economic activity led to a substantial rise in merchandise imports, which reached a record level of over R2.400 million in the year ended June, 1970. Net invisible imports also rose appreciably while exports and gold output showed little change, so that the current deficit for the year exceeded R460 million. There was, however, a net capital inflow of just over R270 million, mainly long-term capital for the private sector. The exchange reserves also gained R8 million from the revaluation of the German mark and R24 million from the initial allocation of Special Drawing Rights. Thus, the total gold and foreign exchange reserves declined by only about R160 million over the year and at the end of June still amounted to over R1,000 million.

Monetary, banking and financial situation

During the 12 months ended June, 1970, bank credit to the private sector showed a substantial increase of R435 million or 14.5 per cent. Such credit has, in fact, risen by well over R100 million per quarter during the last eight quarters up to 30th June, 1970. This large increase was made possible by several relaxations of the restrictions on bank credit.

Bank credit to the Government sector also increased by R167 million during the 12 months ended june, 1970, after it had declined since 1966. This reversal in the downward trend was mainly due to the fact that the Government’s borrowing operations were less successful than had been hoped.

These increases in bank credit outweighed the contractionary effect of the moderate decline in the gold and foreign exchange reserves, and money and near-money consequently increased by about 12.5 per cent over the 12 months ended June, 1970.

Although short-term interest rates showed no significant change over the year, considerable upward pressure developed on deposit interest rates. In order to avoid a further rise in the interest burden on house owners, farmers and exporters, the Reserve Bank requested financial institutions not to increase their rates on 12 month deposits above 7 per cent until the authorities had had an opportunity to study the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission.

In the capital market, a marked change occurred after the sharp fall in equity prices since May of last year. The flow of funds to the equity market (including unit trusts) was reduced and the flow to deposit-receiving institutions increased. The fixed property market remained very active, however, and continued to be favoured by investors, including financial institutions. The market for gilt-edged and semi-gilt-edged securities, which is highly dependent on institutional support, did not therefore benefit much from the switch away from stock exchange investment, especially as many of the institutions now hold public sector stocks well in excess of the legally prescribed minima.

In the these circumstances there was a considerable tightening in the capital market for gilt-edged and semi-gilt-edged securities and the public sector found it increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient loan funds. Several upward adjustments were made to the yields quoted on new issues by local authorities and public corporations as well as on company debentures and notes, while the Government last May increased the rate of interest on its long-term stock to 7 per cent. Even these adjustments, however, have not as yet elicited sufficient support from investors.

High interest rates are, of course, a worldwide phenomenon at present. In many countries, particularly in Western Europe, rates are far higher than in South Africa.

Economic Prospects

The picture which emerges from this brief survey is one of a strong and virile economy, soundly based and developing rapidly to meet the challenge of the new decade. It is especially gratifying that the slowing down noticeable towards the end of 1969 and during the earlier part of this year appears to have been rectified and all the signs point to a resumption of rapid growth.

As in any rapidly-growing economy, however, certain strains have developed, certain imbalances have to be corrected, and certain sectors of the economy require particular attention. The following are the main problem areas of which the Budget must take account:

1. (1) Consumption has been increasing very rapidly, perhaps too rapidly, and conversely saving has been rising too slowly or, in the case of personal sawing, even declining.
2. (2) There has been an imbalance in the growth of fixed investment. Too much may have been directed to building and construction, particularly in the commercial and financial sectors, and certainly too little has gone into private manufacturing industry.
3. (3) Although the deficit on the balance of payments on current account need cause no concern for the present in view of the satisfactory level of our reserves, it obviously cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely at its present level. As I noted earlier, however, at least a part of the high level of imports during the past year has probably gone into the building up of inventories. Nevertheless, the high level of imports must be regarded as one aspect of the high level of spending in general, and especially of consumption expenditure.

   On the export side, our moderate performance during the past year can be ascribed in part to the fact that agricultural production in 1969 was affected by unfavourable climatic conditions, but partly also to the pull of local demand. Future prospects for our exports will clearly be affected by economic conditions in our principal markets. Here there is much uncertainty, although the general picture seems more promising than it did even a month or two ago. In the longer term, the possible entry of Britain into the European Economic Community will pose problems for certain of our export industries.

4. (4) There are stresses and strains in the monetary and banking system. In particular, there is upward pressure on deposit interest rates and on interest rates in the capital market, while there has been some growth in the so-called “grey market”, that is in direct lending transactions without the intermediation of a financial institution.
5. (5) Certain sectors of agriculture give cause for concern. The year 1969-’70 was, statistically, a good farming year, with a record wheat crop and the second largest maize crop in our history. Nevertheless, the drought of the past few seasons has affected certain areas very severely, and the Government is giving attention to both the long-term and the short-term aspects of this problem.
6. (6) The last problem area is the most fundamental and is intimately connected with many of the other problems which I have mentioned; it is the problem of inflation. Inflation is a world-wide phenomenon to-day, and by international standards South Africa has had much success in restraining it within treasonable bounds; nevertheless, an increase in prices such as we have experienced during the past year is definitely not satisfactory for a country in South Africa’s position.

Inflation in South Africa at present derives not only from the cost side, particularly the upward pressure on wages, but also from the pressure of demand. I do not agree with those who argue that demand inflation is no longer a problem. The high level of liquidity in the private sector and the strong upward movement of consumption expenditure, which has risen by 22 per cent in two years and is still rising, indicate that potential and actual demand pressure is still an important factor in the economy. It would therefore be a mistake to relax too precipitately the restrictions on credit and other measures designed to curb excessive spending; on the contrary, we have to consider whether some further restraints may not be required—restraints which can be imposed fairly and without jeopardizing the maintenance of satisfactory growth in the economy.

Cost inflation is slosely bound up with the shortage of labour, particularly skilled manpower, and cannot be dealt with by fiscal measures alone. The labour problem is so central to our economy, however, that I should like to say a few words on this subject.

A shortage of labour is a characteristic of any rapidly growing economy, and is found in many countries of the world, such as, for example, those countries of Western Europe which attract large numbers of workers from Eastern and Southern Europe. It is, in fact, a cause for satisfaction that jobs should be available for all who wish to work and that unemployment should be of negligible dimensions, as is now the case in South Africa.

Secondly, it should not be assumed that the labour supply in South Africa is by any means static. Over the 12 months ended May, 1970, for instance, the index of employment in private manufacturing rose by about 6 per cent, and in private construction by over 12 per cent.

Thirdly, the Government is already doing much, and will do more in this Budget, to remedy the shortage of skilled manpower through the provision of improved facilities for higher education and by encouraging immigration.

Those who believe that there is some easy instant solution to the labour problem are deceiving themselves. Anyone acquainted with the realities of the South African situation will acknowledge that most of the facile remedies suggested would disrupt the pattern of our social structure and endanger industrial peace without, in fact, making a significant contribution to the solution of the problem.

It is not for the Government alone to solve the manpower problem. I would in all earnestness pose the question whether employers cannot make a greater contribution, through more efficient organization and methods, to the attainment of greater productivity, and whether all of us, whatever work we may do, cannot help to increase appreciably the welfare of our country by working a little harder and a little longer. I would not myself use the words of Solomon: “Go to the ant, thou sluggard”, but I believe that both employers and employees can, with a little effort, help significantly to overcome our difficulties.

Nevertheless, the Government is alive to the seriousness of the problem and is constantly considering methods whereby, within the framework of its policy, the difficulties of industrialists and other employers can be overcome. Some of my colleagues will have more to say on this point at a later stage.

The Government is also investigating anew the encouragement of industrial growth in border areas and in the Bantu homelands. It is not impossible that methods may be found whereby the establishment of industries in these areas can be encouraged and, at the same time, more non-white labour can be made available for those industries which remain in the white areas. The results of this investigation will be made known later.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the present economic situation in South Africa is essentially sound, and the economy is still showing the remarkable vitality which has characterized it for most of the past decade. This vitality itself brings problems, and in this Budget we shall have to consider measures to achieve the following objectives:

Before outlining my proposals on these matters, I shall first deal with the State’s accounts for the preceding and the present financial years.

The Financial Year 1969-’70

The exceptional growth in our economy last year caused the State’s revenue for the financial year 1969-70 to exceed the original estimates by approximately R150 million, of which about IR66 million is accounted for by income tax on companies, R15 million by stamp duties and about R50 million by customs and excise duties. Our estimates of the revenue from the sales duty proved to be very close to the mark.

In the Additional Estimates passed earlier this year provision was made for certain additional expenditures on Revenue Account, notably in respect of increased assistance to universities, provincial subsidies and social pensions. After allowing for these increases and for the transfer of R10 million to Loan Account, the Revenue Account showed a surplus of R113 million.

On Loan Account, hon. Members will recall that in the Additional Estimates provision was made for a substantial contribution to the funds of the Land Bank as well as for certain other urgent expenditures. Expenditure from Loan Account was, in consequence, approximately R15 million more than the original estimate. In addition, substantial amounts were debited to the account in respect of a net repayment of Treasury Bills and of certain currency transactions with the International Monetary Fund. On the other hand, tight conditions in the capital market both in South Africa and overseas prevented us from raising as much in loans as we had expected, and the Loan Account ended the year with a deficit of R133 million.

Taking into account the accumulated surplus from previous years, the Revenue Account had available on 31st March, 1970, some R213 million. I propose that the necessary amount be transferred from this Account to cover the deficit on Loan Account. Furthermore, as in previous years, I propose that an amount of: R5 million be transferred from Revenue Account to the Loan Fund for the Promotion of Economic Co-operation. The balance of approximately R75 million can be left in the Revenue Account.

On the South-West Africa Account, both revenue and expenditure were close to the original estimates and the deficit of R7.6 million will be met from the reserve funds, totalling about R33 million, at the disposal of the Account.

The Financial Year 1970-71

Expenditure on Revenue Account

The Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account which I shall lay upon the Table provide for total expenditure of R1,857.6 million, which is R168 million above expenditure in 1969-70. Government departments asked for considerably more and the amount now requested is the minimum required for essential Government services.

On the Vote “Higher Education” there is an increase of R14.6 million or 25 per cent, mainly on account of increased financial assistance to universities, which now stands at more than double the figure of only two years ago. This is in accordance with an interim recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Universities and reflects the great importance which the Government attaches to university education. “Wisdom,” as Solomon said, “is better than rubies”, and the House will not begrudge the universities their justifiable requirements.

There is an increase of R34 million in the provision for Provincial subsidies. Last year I expressed the hope that it would be possible before this Budget to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of provincial finance. The involved nature of the problem and the need for very detailed studies and for full consultation with the provincial administrations have frustrated this hope, but the matter is now far advanced and I trust that the Government will be able to present its proposals to the House well before the next Budget. In the meantime, it is necessary to make extra-statutory provision for the Provinces’ essential requirements.

The normal provision under the Vote Social Welfare and Pensions shows an increase of R13.1 million, due principally to the increase in social pensions announced last February. Provision for Old Age and War Veterans’ pensions is now no less than 41 per cent higher than it was only five years ago.

Subsidies in respect of wheat and maize show an increase of R12.6 million, which the Government considers necessary in order to keep down the cost of essential foodstuffs. Under the same Vote there is also a provision of R6.2 million for subsidies in respect of fodder under the drought relief scheme and in respect of the cost of transport of fodder and livestock under the grazing relief scheme; this is an increase of R4.3 million over last year’s expenditure and reflects the Government’s concern for those farmers who have suffered from the effects of the drought. For the same reason, the provision for drilling services under the Vote “Water Affairs” has been increased by R2.2 million or 48 per cent.

Under the Treasury Vote there is an item of R4 million in respect of financial assistance to South-West Africa for certain development projects recommended by the Odendaal Commission. Up to now the Government has assisted the South-West African Administration by means of loans, but it has recently been decided that it would be unfair to burden the South-West African taxpayer with the financial responsibility for such projects, most of which are of only limited direct benefit to the white population of the Territory. As foreshadowed by the Government in its White Paper of 1964, previous loans for these projects (amounting to R55.2 million) will be written off and future provision will be made by means of direct grants.

There is a decrease of R7.8 million in the provision under the Defence Vote. This does not, unfortunately, reflect any permanent reduction in the cost of our defence, but results from the fact that the Defence Special Equipment Account and the Armanents Board still have funds in hand and do not require such large grants as in the previous year. For the future, however, we must still expect to require substantial sums for our defence. The Government would indeed be neglecting its duty if it failed to make adequate provision against the continued threat of aggression from beyond our borders.

Bantu Education Account

The financing of the Bantu Education Account has for some time been unsatisfactory, and for some years the normal revenue of the Account has had to be supplemented from Loan Account. It is not possible to work out a new and more satisfactory basis until the results of the new system of taxation for the Bantu, which came into force in April of this year, are known. It would be pointless, however, to continue increasing the indebtedness of the Account by advancing further loans, and I therefore propose that the amount required to supplement the normal revenue of the Account during the current year, namely R17 million, be transferred to the Bantu Education Account from Revenue Account The necessary legislation will be introduced later in this Session.

Expenditure on Loan Account

On Loan Account the Government is asking for a total of R718.2 million, which is R58.4 million or 9 per cent above the level of the previous year. In view of the very heavy demands for the improvement of the infrastructure of the economy, I believe that this increase is reasonable.

In this Water Year it is appropriate that the provision under the Loan Vote “Water Affairs” should show a substantial increase and should for the first time exceed R100 million. It is true that King Solomon said: “Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad”, but in our country I am sure he would have seen the need for the conservation of water and would have made adequate provision for the posterity which he did so much to augment.

Under the Vote “Industries” there is an increase of R20 million in respect of loans to Iscor for its programme of expansion and of R8 million for loans to the South-West Africa Water and Electricity Corporation.

There is also an increase of R22 million in respect of loans to the Provincial Administrations for their capital expenditures and of R8 million under Loan Vote “Bantu Administration and Development”, mainly for the development of Bantu Areas by the Bantu Trust and by Bantu Authorities. On the other hand, there is a decrease of R22 million in the funds required for the Armaments Development and Production Corporation.

On Revenue and Loan Accounts together, that is, on the cash basis, the total amount required is therefore R2,592.8 million, which is R230.7 million or 9.8 per cent above the 1969-’70 level of expenditure.

Before dealing with the estimates of revenue however, I wish to propose certain additional expenditures.

Interest Rates

One of the problem areas to which I referred earlier was the imbalance in the monetary and banking system and the upward pressure on interest rates. This upward pressure results from the excessive demand for loan funds for investment and consumption purposes, which is itself a product of inflationary forces. In recent months the upward movement of interest rates has been restrained by the understanding between the Reserve Bank on the one hand, and banks and build-ins societies on the other, that deposit rates would not be raised. This understanding was reached, at the request of the Reserve Bank, mainly in order to prevent a rise in the mortgage bond rate of building societies.

Controls on deposit rates, in so far as they are effective, prevent interest rates from fulfilling their function, which is to bring the demand for and supply of loan funds into equilibrium through, where necessary, stimulating saving and discouraging investment. They distort the flow of funds in the money and capital markets so that funds tend to flow into uncontrolled investment channels or in directions where the income on investment takes a form other than interest. They stimulate the growth of the so-called “grey market” where substantially higher interest rates are offered.

Experience in the past, and at present, furthermore shows that effective control even of the deposit rates of financial institutions, is very difficult, since the control is often evaded by the payment of commissions and other devices.

Because of these many practical difficulties, and because there is a real danger that the continuation of controls may add fuel to the fires of inflation, the Reserve Bank, after the usual consultation with the Treasury, decided to relieve the banks and building societies of their undertaking to maintain a maximum rate of 7 per cent per annum on deposits. This decision was announced by the Reserve Bank earlier this afternoon. The decision is in line with the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission.

This does not mean that interest rates will now rise to fantastic heights. The Reserve Bank will be in touch with the financial institutions and I am confident that they will act responsibly and with due regard to the national interest. Nevertheless, some increase in deposit rates and consequently in certain lending rates is to be expected; that is the consequence of market forces and is the price which must be paid for restoring a measure of flexibility to the money and capital market and reducing the strains to which that market has been exposed.

Certain sections of our community are especially vulnerable to the effects of high interest rates; I refer to farmers, home owners and exporters. The Franzsen Commission therefore recommended that the effect of possible higher interest rates on these groups should be cushioned by means of interest subsidies, and the Government has accepted the broad principle of this recommendation.

In the case of farmers, interest on mortgage bonds on farm property, where the loan has been or is to used by a bona fide farmer for farming purposes, will be subsidized to a maximum extent of 1½ per cent, but only to the extent necessary to reduce the interest rate after subsidy to 7½ per cent. In other words, a farmer who pays 8½ per cent on his bond will receive a subsidy equivalent to 1 per cent, while a farmer who pays 9½ per cent will receive the maximum of 1½ per cent. The subsidy will only apply to such part of the mortgage debt of each farmer as does not exceed R100,000; in other words, a farmer with a bond of R150,000 will only be entitled to subsidy on the interest on R100,000. For administrative reasons the subsidy will apply only to interest on mortgage bonds held by registered financial institutions. The interest charged by the Land Bank on mortgage bonds is less than 7½ per cent and consequently will not qualify for the subsidy.

As regards house owners, the Government already extends substantial help to the lower income groups through the various schemes administered by the Department of Community Development. I feel that the Government also has a responsibility towards the middle income groups, but I cannot ask the taxpayer to subsidize housing above a certain level. Subsidy will therefore only be paid on the interest on mortgage loans not exceeding R12,000 for new and existing houses where the value of the relevant property does not exceed R16,000. The subsidy will only be paid on the difference between the interest rate paid and the present rate of 8½ per cent, subject to a maximum of 1 per cent.

Detailed provisions still have to be worked out, but the broad intention is that the subsidy should apply, within the limits already mentioned, only to interest on mortgage loans extended by financial institutions to individuals for the purchase, erection or improvement of dwellings for normal occupation by the borrowers and their families.

In the case of exporters, the Franzsen Commission proposed inter alia that manufacturing industries which achieve new or expanded exports should receive a subsidy of 25 per cent of the normal cost of financing such exports. The Commission considered that this assistance should, at least in the first instance, be confined to the category mentioned above, on the grounds that a ready export market exists for most of our agricultural and mineral products and that the emphasis for the future should lie in exploring new markets for manufactured goods. It was the Commission’s view that subsidy should be paid direct to exporters on presentation of the necessary supporting documents.

The Government has decided in principle that some form of assistance should be extended to exporters for the financing of exports, especially if interest rates should increase, and the departments concerned are at present giving consideration, in the light of the Commission’s recommendations, to the formulation of a suitable scheme.

It will obviously take a little time to work out the details of all these schemes, including the precise conditions on which subsidy will be paid and the dates on which the schemes will come into operation. The Ministers concerned will make announcements in due course, and I would ask the public to exercise patience until these announcements are made.

I estimate the cost of these interest subsidies (on the assumption—which may or may not be realized—that interest rates will rise to the extent necessary to bring the full subsidy into operation) —at approximately R10.8 million for the current financial year—R3 million for farmers, R7.5 million for house owners and R0.3 million for exporters.

Public Service Salaries

I should like to say something here about the salaries of the Public Service. This matter has naturally come to the fore again in view of the increase in salaries and wages of railway employees. It must be pointed out, however, that a general improvement of salaries and conditions of service in the Public Service has only just been completed, and it cannot be taken for granted that an increase in salaries in the Railways and Harbours Administration must necessarily always immediately be followed, as a matter of course, by a similar increase in the Public Service, or vice versa.

Nevertheless, the Government is aware of the differences which exist in the remuneration of certain grades in the Public Service as compared with similar types of work elsewhere. It is also true that there is an acute shortage of suitable personnel in certain sections of the Service.

The adjustment of salaries in the Public Service is, however, a complex matter, and one on which a sudden decision cannot be taken. The Government has accordingly decided to institute a thorough investigation into this matter in the light of the demands of the prevailing conditions in our country. This investigation is now under way and after consideration of its findings the Government will announce its decisions.

Meanwhile the Government wishes to express its sincere thanks to all its officials and employees who in their several positions have continued to serve the country so faithfully and devotedly. Such service will not go unnoticed by the Government.

I return now to the consideration of the estimated expenditure for the current financial year.

Total expenditure on Revenue Account, including the transfer to Bantu Education Account, will then amount to R1,885.4 million. On Revenue and Loan Accounts combined, the figure is then R2,603.6 million.

Revenue

Revenue on the existing basis of taxation is estimated at R1,992.4 million. This estimate is based on the assumption of a continuance of the rapid rate of growth in the economy and of a further substantial increase in personal incomes and in company profits. Salaries and wages showed a fairly consistent rise throughout the year ended June 1970 and, with the continuation of pressure on wages, further increases can be expected. Profits, on the other hand, tended to level off from the fourth quarter of 1969, but rose significantly again in the second quarter of 1970, mainly owing to the large maize crop. These estimates of revenue must therefore be regarded with some caution.

National Road Fund

It has become apparent that additional funds will have to be provided to finance the National Road Fund, which has to bear the cost of a radical modernization of our national roads in the years ahead. The Government has therefore decided that an additional amount of the duty on motor spirit should be diverted to the National Road Fund, and the necessary legislation will be introduced shortly. The revenue available during the current financial year for the Revenue Account will then be reduced by R12 million.

Revenue Account 1970-’71

After deduction of this amount, revenue will still amount to R1,980.4 million, yielding a surplus of R95 million over the estimated expenditure of R1,885.4 million. If this were the end of the story, the position would indeed by very favourable. The real fiscal problem of this Budget, however, lies in the financing of the Loan Account.

Loan Account 1970-’71

As I mentioned earlier, expenditure on Loan Account during the current financial year is expected to amount to R718.2 million. In addition, loan repayments and sundry items amounting to R539.5 million must be met from this Account—a total of R1,257.7 million.

Against this, the following amounts are estimated to be available:

Even if the entire revenue surplus of R95 million is transferred to Loan Account, therefore, an amount of R222.8 million will still have to be found. Possible sources are additional internal and external borrowing, additional loan levies or taxation, and the accumulated funds in the Exchequer and Stabilisation Accounts. If the Budget is to be financed, as is desirable, in a non-inflationary manner, however, we should not make use of the funds accumulated in previous years, and I propose to avoid this as far as possible.

Non-inflationary financing also implies that we should not make undue use of foreign loans, which are in any case very expensive at present. Nevertheless, in view of the heavy demands upon our Loan Account and also in view of the present deficit in our balance of payments I think we would be justified in aiming at a figure of R100 million in new foreign loans. Nearly half this amount has, in fact, already been raised during the present financial year.

Honourable members will notice that our estimates of the receipts from the tax-free Bonus Bonds during the current year is only R18 million. This is in line with the rather disappointing receipts from this source in recent months. I have come to the conclusion that the various channels of saving made available by the State are in need of some streamlining, both to stimulate saving in general and to ensure that the State receives its due proportion of the nation’s savings. I intend, therefore, to institute a departmental inquiry into this matter without delay. I hope that this inquiry will result in the channelling of additional savings to the State, in one form or another, to an amount of R15 million.

One of the great advantages of the freeing of interest rates, to which I referred earlier, is that the State will itself be able to compete more aggressively in the local capital market for the funds it requires. I expect, therefore, that we shall in the next few months have greater success with our local stock issues than in the recent past, and I think we can hope to raise an amount of R80 million in this way during the current financial year, i.e. in addition to the amount necessary to replace maturing loans.

This leaves an amount of R27.8 million to be found, if possible, from loan levies and taxation. Before considering possible sources, however, there are a few tax changes which I wish to announce.

Tax Concessions

It will be clear to hon. members that no far-reaching tax concessions can be expected in this Budget, firstly, because economic and fiscal considerations make it dangerous in present conditions to introduce any substantial tax reductions, and secondly, because it was not yet possible to consider the most recent recommendations of the Franzsen Commission as a whole. There are certain specific concessions, however, which I feel should be introduced without further delay. As Solomon observed: “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.”

Exporters Allowance

The first concession refers to the allowance which permits exporters to deduct from their taxable income additional amounts in respect of allowable expenditure on the development of export markets. In order to provide even greater encouragement to exporters, I have decided to increase the allowance for those exporters who succeed in increasing their exports by more than 10 per cent. At present, those exporters who increase their export turnover by between 10 and 25 per cent are allowed an additional deduction of 62$ per cent of market development expenditure, and those who increase their exports by more than 25 per cent, an additional deduction of 75 per cent. The additional deduction allowed in these two cases will toe increased to 75 per cent and 100 per cent respectively. Those exporters who do not succeed in increasing their exports by 10 per cent or more, will still be entitled to the additional deduction of 50 per cent of market development expenditure. This concession is estimated to cost R1.l million in the current year.

I have also decided to accept a recommendation of the Franzsen Commission to the effect that, for the purposes of this concession, increases in export turnover should be calculated on the basis of the average of the three preceding years, instead of on the preceding year only.

Investment Allowances

My next concession is specifically designed to encourage fixed investment in manufacturing industry, which, as I explained earlier, has for some time been lower than I should like to see. Hon. members will recall that a system of investment allowances was introduced by my predecessor in the early nineteen-sixties when investment was extremely sluggish, and was abolished (except in certain special cases), a few years ago when conditions had changed and inflationary pressures were building up. Although, as I have explained, the danger of excessive pressure of demand on our limited resources has by no means disappeared, I think that a temporary encouragement to investment in manufacturing industry is again justified. Manufacturers will therefore be allowed to deduct from their taxable income 15 per cent of the cost of new machinery or plant brought into use after to-day, and 10 per cent of the cost of any new factory building, or of new additions to an existing factory building, the erection of which is commenced after to-day. These allowances are not taken into account in determining the depreciation on machinery and buildings in subsequent years. The allowances will apply to machinery, plant and buildings brought into use up to 30th June, 1973. The cost of this concession will be R16.5 million in a full year but only R0.5 million in 1970-’71.

Donations to Universities

The Franzsen Commission recommends that the concession in respect of donations to universities should be considerably extended, and, in view of the shortage of trained personnel and the vital importance of higher education for the future of our country, I have decided to accept this recommendation. “Wisdom,” said Solomon, “is the principal thing: therefore get wisdom.”

In the first place, the purpose for which donations may be made under this concession will be broadened to include training and research in the humanities as well as the natural sciences, and to cover the acquisition of laboratory equipment and technical literature, the appointment of research personnel, and the acquisition of fixed property and the erection of buildings for the generally recognized purposes of the university.

Secondly, the allowable deductions will be raised from 2 per cent to 5 per cent of taxable income in the case of companies. Furthermore, the concession will henceforth be extended to individual donors, up to a maximum of R500 per annum or 2 per cent of taxable income, whichever is the greater.

These concessions will apply to donations to universities and to colleges for advanced technical education, as well as to donations to the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund.

This substantial concession will cost the Exchequer about R1.9 million in a full year, but practically nothing in the current financial year since the deduction will only be made in assessments dealt with during the next financial year. I hope that potential donors will heed the words of Solomon: “Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to-morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.”

Elderly taxpayers

Old age often brings additional personal and domestic expenses, and I think the House will welcome a concession to our senior citizens of limited means, of whom Solomon said: “The hoary head is a crown of glory.” I propose that the exemption limit from income tax, in the case of individuals over the age of 60 years, be increased from R1,200 to R1,350 for married and from R750 to R925 for unmarried taxpayers. Since a married person is also entitled to a medical allowance of R150 and an unmarried person to an allowance of R75, this concession will in effect exempt from income tax every married person over 60 with a taxable income of R1,500 and less, and every unmarried person over 60 with a taxable income of R1,000 or less. The loss of revenue should not exceed R100,000.

Changes in Customs and Excise Duties

I also have to announce certain changes in customs and excise duties. The first concerns the excise duty on motor-cars. In a report tabled last year the Board of Trade and Industries recommended that the Third Phase of the programme for raising the local content of motor-cars should be put into effect from 1st January, 1971 and that the excise duty on motor-cars should be increased by 5 cents per lb. from that date, provided that the increase should not apply to models which comply with the local content requirements of Phase III. After representations had been received from the industry the Board agreed to recommend an increase of only 4 cents per lb., and the Government has accepted this recommendation. Since the increased duty will only apply to models which do not meet the requirements of the programme, it is not possible to estimate the additional revenue involved, but it will probably be small.

The second change concerns the duty on aviation kerosene. With the increasing use in the Republic of jet aircraft by private persons and bodies, and as aviation kerosene used as fuel in such aircraft enjoys a considerable tax advantage in relation to aviation spirit—the fuel used by the smaller type of aircraft with piston engines—I think it is fair to increase the customs and excise duties on aviation kerosene to the same level as that of aviation spirit and petrol. The State and international airlines on foreign flights will continue to be allowed full rebate of the duty, and the additional revenue will be very small.

I come now to my proposals for raising additional money for the Revenue and Loan Accounts. In view of the need into restrain excessive consumption expenditure, I turn first to the sales duty.

Sales Duty

When the sales duty was imposed last year, certain items were exempted for reasons connected with certain tariff negotiations. The reason for their exemption has now fallen away and I propose that these articles be brought within the scope of the duty. The relevant articles and duties are the following:

I propose further that the sales duty on those goods which are at present subject to a duty of 20 per cent be increased to 25 per cent. Most of these articles are luxuries and can, I think, in present circumstances justifiably be called upon to bear the higher rate of duty. As exceptions, however, the present duty of 20 per cent on matches (other than Bengal matches) and on certain types of tyres will be reduced to 10 per cent. I trust that the benefit of this reduction will be passed on to the public.

The sales duty on motor-cars is 5 per cent. I propose that an additional 5 per cent be imposed, but only upon motor-cars with a value for sales duty purposes of R2,050 and higher—this corresponds to a retail price of approximately R3,000.

The estimated additional revenue during the current financial year from these changes in sales duty is RIO million.

The change in the excise duty on motor-cars under Phase III of the local content programme comes into effect on 1st January, 1971. The increased customs and excise duties on aviation kerosene come into operation immediately and are applicable only to such aviation kerosene as has not at this moment been cleared for home consumption from customs and excise manufacturing warehouses and bonded warehouses. The changes in sales duty, including the increased sales duty on motorcars above a certain price level, come into effect immediately. In the case of locally manufactured sales duty goods the new or amended duties are only applicable to such goods as at this moment have not left the premises of the manufacturers, while the new or amended duties on imported sales duty goods are only applicable to such goods as have not yet at this moment been cleared for home consumption.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of section 58.(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I now lay upon the Table, for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals in respect of the amended customs and excise duties and the new and amended sales duties.

Loan Levies

In view of the need to restrain expenditure I believe that a small additional loan levy on individuals is justified. At present a taxpayer who pays income tax of R100 or more to the Central Government, must contribute a loan levy equivalent to 5 per cent of the basic tax (i.e. before adding the surcharge), and I propose that a further loan levy of 5 per cent be imposed on the same conditions. The additional levy is estimated to yield R12.5 million during the current financial year.

I am hesitant to impose a loan levy upon companies because of the desirability of encouraging fixed investment, especially in manufacturing industry. It is of such importance, however, that the Budget should be financed from non-inflationary sources that I consider a small levy to be justified, particularly in view of the re-introduction of the investment allowance. Companies (other than gold-and diamond-mining companies, which already pay loan levy) will therefore be required to contribute a loan levy of 2i per cent of the amount of normal income tax payable. The yield for the present financial year is estimated at R15.5 million.

Taking into account all the tax changes which I have proposed, but without allowing for any transfer from Revenue to Loan Account, the Revenue Account is estimated to show a surplus for the current financial year of R103.3 million, and the Loan Account a deficit of R94.8 million. On the two Accounts combined there should therefore be a small surplus of R8.5 million.

I should mention that the South-West Africa Account provides for expenditure of R59.4 million during the current financial year. The revenue of the Account, after providing for the transfer of R33 million to the Territory Revenue Fund, is estimated at R48.1 million before allowing for the tax and levy changes which I have announced. These changes will all be applicable in South-West Africa except the loan levy on individuals and the concessions in respect of individual income taxpayers. Even allowing for these changes, it is probable that the South-West Africa Account will show a considerable deficit over the year, which can, however, be met from the accumulated reserve funds in the Account.

As is customary, I insert here in the printed version of the Budget Speech a summary of the State’s accounts on the conventional and on the cash basis:

Conventional Basis

Cash Basis

I have tried in this Budget to meet—in so far as this can be done by fiscal measures— the main problems which face our economy to-day.

I have endeavoured to stimulate fixed investment in manufacturing industry by re-introducing the investment allowances for a limited period.

Our export trade will be given greater encouragement through the more generous exporters’ allowances which I have proposed.

By making provision for interest subsidy schemes for farmers, home owners and exporters I have made it possible for the Reserve Bank to relieve the strains in the money and capital markets by restoring a measure of freedom to interest rates without causing undue hardship to those sectors of our community which are particularly sensitive to changes in rates.

I have made provision in the Budget for assistance to those sections of the farming community which have suffered severely from the effects of the drought, and also for the long-term water requirements of our country through a greatly increased allocation to the Department of Water Affairs.

Lastly, and most important, I have taken steps to curb inflation—

It would be a mistake, however, to regard the Budget as merely a patchwork of ad hoc measures designed to meet particular problems. This Budget is one of the factors which will shape the future of South Africa in the coming decade. I have striven to make it, in all its facets—including many which time prevents me from mentioning to-day—an instrument for forging a greater South Africa, economically strong and resilient, and ready to meet the challenge of the nineteen-seventies. This objective cannot, however, be attained by fiscal policy alone. It requires vision and determination in the framing of broad Government policy. It calls for the old-fashioned virtues of thrift, hard work and enterprise on the part of each one of us. If we have “the will to do, the soul to dare”, I believe we can meet the challenge.

I now lay upon the Table—

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from—
   1. (a) Revenue Account [R.P. 2—’70];
   2. (b) Loan Account [R.P. 3—’70];
   3. (c) Bantu Education Account [R.P. 4— ’70]; and
   4. (d) South-West Africa Account [R.P. 5—’70]

   during the year ending 31st March, 1971;

2. (2) Estimate of the Revenue to be received during the year ending 31st March, 1971 [R.P. 6—’70];
3. (3) White Paper in connection with the Budget Statement (Printed) (W.P.B.—’70);
4. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1969-’70 and 1970-’71; and
5. (5) Taxation Proposals.

REVENUE 1969/70 R1,000

REVENUE 1970/71

(On existing basis of taxation)

R1,000

a Non-recurrent.

Mr. Speaker, I should first like to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for the kind references he made to the Hon. Sidney Waterson in this House during the first session of this year. Those were references which were very greatly appreciated by members of this side of the House. I should like to take this opportunity to pay our tribute to Mr. Sidney Waterson. Mr. Sidney Waterson rendered distinguished service to South Africa both at home and abroad over a period of a great many years. Subsequently he led the financial debates from this side of the House for a period of over 20 years. With his analytical mind and his calm approach to his subject he rendered great service to this House. I am sure that all will join with me in wishing him well.

Mr. Speaker, to-day will be known as the day when the Loan Account took over the Budget, because despite the enormous surplus that the hon. the Minister could have had, had it not been for his loan problems, not only has that surplus disappeared, but additional taxation has had to be levied to meet his Loan Account. So we have this Budget. But why?

I think it is fair to say that this Budget reflects nothing more and nothing less than the dilemma in which the present Government finds itself. The overwhelming cause of this dilemma is in the past and present policies of the Government. What we are seeing to-day is the crystallization, in economic terms, of all the consequences that must logically flow from Government policies. We find in this Budget Speech of the hon. the Minister still a great deal of uncertainty. In it he refers to inquiry after inquiry which he intends to set up to find the answers to some of his problems. I would have been happy to-day to say to the hon. the Minister, whom I respect greatly, that this is the Budget of a Solomon, but I am afraid I have to term it somewhat differently. I would say that it is what the Americans call a “checker board” Budget. On the one hand we have the usual surplus position we have had for the past innumerable years. An original estimate of a surplus of R2.8 million and to-day after transferring RIO million to Capital Account, a second estimated surplus, because it is not the final surplus, of slightly more, namely R113 million. We have again an increase in Government expenditure. Last year, when the hon. the Minister was forced to spend R147 million on increased expenditure, he said that it was greater than he would have liked. We agreed with him. This year, of course, it is R168 million. So I presume that the hon. the Minister likes this very much less.

We are faced with increases in the sales tax. We are faced with sales duties on motor-cars. We are faced with additional loan levies and with loan levies on companies. But with all this there is not even the usual very small crumb that the hon. the Minister has found it policy in the past to give to such people as the pensioner and the lower income groups. There is no joy for the poor man in this Budget. There is some hope for the civil servant as he is going to be the subject of one of these inquiries.

But now we come to the other side of this checker board Budget. This is what I might perhaps with modesty call the United Party side of the Budget. Let us enumerate some of this side. Let us take subsidies for farmers. Where did this come from? Then there are subsidies for house owners; help to exporters; investment allowances; help to the universities; freeing of interest rates; and additional privileges for old-age taxpayers. Had I closed my eyes I would have said “this is a United Party spokesman”.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are many complex matters dealt with in this lengthy Budget which we have had from the hon. the Minister today. It requires a great deal of very serious attention. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, after the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had made his Budget speech, I referred to it as the shrimp budget because it was a budget which indicated that the only way the hon. the Minister could move forward was by going backward, like that particular crustacean. I think we now have more sympathy with that shrimp budget and we know why it acted like a shrimp. It is because it had, as we have just heard, to move on a checker board.

The performance of the Government and hon. members on the other side, in regard to the Post Office Budget, reminded me so much of the two parts of a moth-eaten Greek chorus. On the one hand we have the hon. the Minister plaintively singing questions, assisted by other members on his sine. On the other side we have the responses, the chant of the second group of this moth-eaten Greek chorus, namely the chant of the “Dankie” Serenade, thanking the hon. the Minister. It was a sad mixture of sounds but it did not at all improve the position of the Post Office or of the country. In fact the “Dankie” Serenade at times became rather thin. The climax was reached when the hon. member for Sunnyside had to thank the Minister for a new post office which was coming to Sunnyside. I hope the hon. member looked at the Estimates. There he would have seen that only a token amount of R50 has been provided for that particular post office. At that rate it will take no less than 5,400 years before Sunnyside has its post office. Of course, our new Government before that time will ensure that Sunnyside does get a new post office.

I went through the speech of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and I counted no less than 25 different question marks in his Hansard. I like this interest shown by the hon. the Minister. It at least shows that his ignorance is matched by a keenness to gain knowledge. But what were these questions? They were questions about the policy of this side of the House. I think that is a compliment to this side. If the hon. the Minister had not thought that this might or will be the next Government of the country, he would not have asked these questions. After all you are not interested in the policy of a party which you do not think is going to come into power. I thank the hon. the Minister for the compliment of having put those questions to us. All these questions involve one aspect, namely the policy of the United Party, as if we have not repeated this over and over again through the years.

Let me just in short state it to him again. Our overall policy is to create an economic climate in which greater economic growth is coupled with full employment, the maximum practical use of labour and the maximum availability of capital. To spell this out we say, more specifically: Firstly, you must plan ahead; secondly, you must raise the capital; thirdly, you must recruit the labour; fourthly, you must get the equipment; fifthly, you must move the Post Office into top gear; and sixthly, you must move the Government out. Is that now clear to the hon. the Minister? Do I have to repeat it again?

But I am prepared to elaborate on some of these points. I want to deal with planning, first of all. I say that the planning can be improved immeasurably in the Post Office. Admittedly, the Post Office has its own planning body. But the other day I was surprised to note the following. I saw a Press release from the Department of Information giving the names of the new appointees to the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. It contains 30 members from the private sector and 20 from the Government sector. In the Government sector the major departments are represented. The great communication system of the Railways is represented on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. But, Sir, to my surprise and my shock I found that the Post Office did not have a representative on the council. Why is that, Sir? Surely this is the second largest communication system in the whole country. It is part of the warp and the woof of our whole economic system in South Africa. It is second only to the Railways in that regard, and yet the Post Office does not have a representative on that council. The reason for that can only be one of two possibilities: Either the hon. the Minister has failed in his duty to demand that the Post Office should be represented on that council, in which case I shall have to do it on his behalf and demand it from the Prime Minister; or it could be that he asked for it and it was turned down. I note that he is telling the ex-Minister of Planning what he did. I do not know whether he asked for it. If he did ask for it and it was turned down, I say that it was a deliberate insult to the Post Office by the Government and a deliberate snub to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs himself.

I spoke about raising the capital. It was indeed a sad Budget. The hon. the Minister mentioned the difficulties of raising capital. We heard it again this afternoon in the Budget speech. But it is no use the hon. the Minister asking us: “How do you think we should raise the capital?” Under United Party Government it would not be an insurmountable problem. What I do accuse the hon. the Minister of, is that in raising capital, he has taken half of his capital needs out of Revenue.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members on the other side are saying, “Hoor, hoor!” How did he manage to take it out of Revenue? By raising tariffs. “Hoor, hoor”? I am waiting for the chorus. This Greek chorus is becoming more and more moth-eaten and silent. Out of the R94 million in capital to be raised by this Government, no less than R47 million will be raised by the Minister from higher tariffs imposed on the ordinary users of telephones and of the Post Office Department.

R46.93 million.

What a magnificent mathematician the hon. the Minister is! I grant him the other R70.000.

The third point I mentioned was that it is our policy that the necessary labour can and should be found for running not only the Post Office, but the whole country. We heard again this afternoon how the labour could not be found by other sectors of the Government and he is, I take it, merely a pawn on the board of catastrophy we have heard of this afternoon-I say that a good government and a good Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can find more labour by improving working conditions, by a constant review of wages and salaries, by more intensive recruiting locally and overseas, by a greater expansion of training facilities and by ensuring the security and the standards of living of the white worker, making full use of the untapped labour potential of the country. There is our answer and let the hon. the Minister not ask us again what our policy is. The hon. the Minister will probably reply, “Oh, but that is what I am trying to do and I am doing many of the things you are telling us. I have opened a new training centre at Olifantsfontein instead of the one at Baragwanath. I did increase wage scales recently. Why, I even made a long-playing record which I am sending to schools to encourage scholars to join the Post Office.” The hon. the Minister boasts and claims that he has decreased the percentage of non-Whites, or Bantu labour in the Post Office. But all that is not a sufficient answer against the cold hard facts of a turnover of 38,000 in staff in the Post Office over three years, of 11 million hours of overtime per year and of 3,000 vacant posts in the Post Office service.

I said fourthly that a good government would have found the equipment needed for expansion in the Post Office. I believe that the hon. the Minister is not making sufficient use of South Africa’s own industries. Let him come with figures to show that he is making use of film. I know that he has been doing it, but I say that he is not making sufficient use of them. There are industries and large companies in this country which I know and he should know are geared to supply much of the equipment which he needs for this country. Let him approach these companies who manufacture telecommunication equipment in this country. The hon. the Minister knows of them and he should ask them to assist him in this matter.

When I say that the Post Office should move into top gear I also say to the hon. the Minister that he should not be afraid of calling on private enterprise to a larger extent than he is doing at the moment. He must not reply that he is already doing it. That is the reply of the shrimp budget, going backwards in order to go forward. We want to see the Post Office going forward and we believe that greater use can be made of private enterprise. In township development he can ask a private company, even if it be a company with associations abroad, to install the necessary telephone and telecommunication facilities. Let him obtain quotes from these companies.

The next step, after moving the Post Office into top gear, is to move the Government out. This point needs no comment except for the following. The Government’s bluff has been called in regard to their election promises. Before the recent general election the Nationalist Party’s propaganda team, no doubt with the approval of the hon. the Minister, issued a pamphlet called “Verkiesingsmanifes van die Nasionale Party, 1970”, in which the following is quoted: “Die Regering sal voortgaan om te verseker dat die posen telefoondienste tred hou met die groeiende behoeftes van ons land.” And what has the whole tenor of the hon-the Minister’s Budget speech been? He said that on account of the labour shortage and other factors beyond his control he cannot keep pace with the growth of the country. He has admitted this fact over and over again. He has said that it is a natural phenomenon for the private sector to go ahead faster than the Government sector. He has admitted that his Government and the Post Office are not keeping pace with the country’s growth. It is a clear answer to this untruth, to this tissue of propagandist lies issued during the general election. I challenge the hon. the Minister to issue a similar statement before the provincial election that lies ahead. He dare not, and I believe he is too honest a person to do it.

Having said this in reply to the fatuous questions about the policy on our side, it is time we heard more of a policy on the Government side—a general policy, not simply a bit of patchwork here and a bit of repair work there-

Sir, I come now to the gravamen of what I wish to say this afternoon and that is that this debate has made it clear that the Post Office and the postal services in South Africa are in a much more shocking and alarming state than our worst fears led us to expect before the hon. the Minister stood up.

Absolute nonsense.

I say that it is in a much more alarming state than the country ever feared in regard to at least five or six different facets. The first one is this—and this is slight digression from the Post Office itself. I refer to the S.A-Broadcasting Corporation itself and certain admissions made by the hon. the Minister in his speech—I have his Hansard here—in regard to the political activities or the political nature of the broadcasts of the S.A.B.C. Sir, let me quote his words—

A couple of minutes later he said—

I then interrupted—

The Minister replied—

The Minister admitted that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation would move on the political terrain and he continued …

What is wrong with that?

Referring to us, he said—

I then got this splendid assistance from the hon. member for Carletonville, who said—

The Minister then said: “Daar is geen verskil nie.”

Read on; do not read half of it.

Of course I will read further. He went on—

Precisely.

Why does the hon. the Minister waste my time by asking me to quote further? What difference does it make to the content? Sir, these factors emerge clearly and I challenge the Minister to deny, first of all, that he said that the S.A.B.C. does not move on the party-political terrain; secondly that he admitted that it does move on the political terrain which is in the “national interest”; and thirdly, that he stated that there was no difference between the national interest and the interest of the Nationalist Party. It appears in Hansard, Sir; I have read it to you. This is a shocking admission; we have never had such an admission before.

The second alarming thing that this debate has proved is this; We have never seen such indecision, such a lack of resolution, such vacillation, such timidity, such a lack of policy as that revealed in the attitude of that Government in regard to the introduction of television in South Africa. The hon. the Minister said that we were afraid to admit that we also asked for a commission on television. We did not ask for a commission to inquire into whether television was advisable or not. We on this side believe that television is desirable. We demand it. We only wanted a commission to work out the particulars of the system itself. Our complaint against the Government is that it appointed a commission to try to find out whether the country should have television at all. Sir, it is incredible that we have a Government of more than a 100 mature members sitting over there and that not a single one of them can tell me what the reply is to my question. Perhaps the loquacious hon. member for Potchefstroom can do so; Do you want television? Sir, let me ask the hon. the Minister: Do you want television?

Personally, I do not want it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister of Sport: Does he want television? Where is the Minister of Information? Does he want television? Does the chairman of their Post Office group want it?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

That is quite interesting, Sir.

May I reply to the question?

No, I am sorry.

Order!

The hon. member asked me a personal question, and my reply is that personally I do not want it.

Sir, I note with interest an interjection by the hon. the Minister of Sport. I was wondering when that gallant knight errant, Sir Frankie the Fearless, was going to come to the defence of his Lady against the ogre of the Brixton Tower, the Minister, and I trust that the next speaker on the Government side will be Sir Frankie and that he will climb on his faithful steed and that we shall hear his defence of his fair lady.

You really have nothing to say, have you?

Sir, hon. members opposite cannot say whether they want television, not even in this year of grace 1970. There is not a single “yes” from that side. Let me tell them that whether they want it or not television will come to this country, but with that Government it will be an unwanted child born of a mixed marriage between a timid Government and a reluctant S.A.B.C. and the midwife will be die Broeder-bond. But it will be born, Sir.

It is not going to be your baby.

I carried the shotgun. The third shocking fact emerging from the Minister’s speech is that half of file capital expenditure of the Post Office now has to come out of the pockets of the ordinary users of telephones and of the Post Office. The fourth shocking factor is that these unprecedented— I would almost call them “murderous”—tariff increases are going to be succeeded by others. I have the Minister’s speech here, in which he explained that when he was addressing the Assocom congress last year, he promised them that he would let them know of any drastic changes in tariffs, that he would give them timeous warning. His excuse for not having given them warning of the recent tariff increases was apparently that these were not drastic changes; that they were not regarded as important enough to give commerce and industry a warning. Sir, are increases of 300 per cent not important enough? Are increases leading to losses of hundreds of thousands of rand to large firms in the country not important enough to justify a warning? But it was an ominous statement, Sir, and it is an indication that our fears were justified when we thought that worse tariff increases were coming. I think at the back of his mind he also has the idea of increasing the postage rates on the newspapers of South Africa, and I trust that even before he considers such a step he will first of all get in touch with the Newspaper Press Union and obtain their views.

Especially the Sunday Press.

The fifth factor emerging from this debate is that there has been no reply whatsoever to our accusation that the Minister cannot meet the labour shortage in the Post Office. We have had no reply whatsoever. I have told hon. members what our policy is. I want to hear from him what he is going to do to get workers for the Post Office. After all, it is no good coming with a policy which will mean unemployment or depression or matters of that nature which will solve his labour problem. But that is not what we advocate on this side.

The sixth, and worst of all, is this. We see that there is no hope of an early solution for this terrific telephone shortage in the foreseeable future. Commerce and industry are desperate the economy is suffering but there was nothing for our comfort in the speech of the hon. the Minister. Again I quote from his Hansard. He told us what he had said in 1968—

It has only been two years, not five.

In other words, his date is 1973. But what did he say in his speech on this Bill? He gave an entirely different picture. He stated further on that he had explained to Dagbreek a couple of months ago “dat dit vier tot vyf jaar sal neem om eers die uitwerking van al die kapitaaluitgawes te sien waarmee ons probeer om die kapasiteit van die telefoondiens to verhoog. Eers nadat die kapasiteit van die telefoondiens verhoog is …” That is only after five years that is, in 1975— “sal ons in ’n posisie wees om telefoondienste vinniger to verskaf”. And then he painted the picture in all its naked horror when he said that from now on—

We are going to find it more difficult to get telephones than ever—

And I trust the rest of the country will listen to these words—

[Interjections.] I am reading portions of the Minister’s speech which in my opinion have not received enough emphasis in the Nationalist Party newspapers, but I trust that that will be remedied in to-morrow’s press. Sir, here we had an original promise that in five years’ time, by 1973—five years after his first promise in 1968—the backlog would be removed. Now we have a statement that there will be an accelerated increase in the telephone shortage for the next couple of years and that only once the exchange capacity has been achieved, which might take five years, from now up to 1975, is there any hope that the telephone shortages will be decreased. But we have seen this increase happening over the past years. During each quarter since 1967 the increase in the backlog every quarter has been an average of 3,500. In the last quarter for which we have figures, from March, 1970, to June, 1970, the increase in the backlog was 8,000, i. e. from 90,000 to 98,000, and it will increase by a similar figure, double the average increase of the past three years, in the quarter from July to Septemeber, 1970. In reply to a question of mine the hon. the Minister stated that the backlog at the end of September this year would be 106,000. It is clear that there is more to this telephone shortage than meets the eye. I believe that this needs a very thorough investigation and I want to suggest that the time has come that an independent commission be appointed, representing commerce, industry and interested bodies as well as all parties in Parliament to go into this whole question of the problem of the telephone shortage, because, as I said, there is more in it than meets the eye. It is not only a question of capital or labour; it is a question of the most atrocious planning; of outdated equipment; of equipment which cost millions which now has to be replaced by other equipment; of a failure to realize the difference between a mechanical system and an electronic system in the Post Office. That is the essential thing that has to be done. If the Minister has the interests of the Government and of the Post Office at heart, he will give his attention to this. As for as I can see, the outlook is bleak, the future is grim, and it is with a sad reflection on “what might have been” that we are now compelled to grant the Third Reading of this Bill.

I have listened attentively now to the entire debate since it began two days ago, but I think the hon. member for Orange Grove takes the cake, as the old people would have said. He pecked about at random. In his Hansard I saw that he had made a very sarcastic attack on the commission which was investigating television in South Africa, but now he himself is advocating a commission. How am I to understand his logic now? Surely that is neither right, nor fair, nor honest. During his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Orange Grove made four points here, or rather five, if we drag in the S.A.B.C. The first was the staff problem, the second was television, the third was the shortage of telephone services and the fourth was the increase in tariffs. In addition he called the Budget of the hon-the Minister the “Lobster Budget”. That is what he termed it again in passing a moment ago.

He made a lobster like speech.

Yes, it was in fact a lobster-like speech, because he began with the staff shortage and he ended with it. He did not know which side of the lobster was the tail end.

But I should like to follow up on what the hon. the Minister asked the hon. member for Orange Grove the other day, ie. what he suggested in respect of the labour shortage in the Post Office! The hon. member gave no reply to that; he did not say a word.

May I ask a question? Did the hon. member hear what I said in regard to the labour shortage …

Order! When an hon. member rises, the hon-member who is addressing the House must resume his seat. Moreover, the hon. member may only put a question.

If I may not put that question, the hon. member must not put questions to me.

The problem with the Opposition is this. The Opposition is prepared to sacrifice the security of white workers for the sake of a frantic, uncontrolled, economic growth rate which, according to them, can result in an increase of 20 per cent in the national income if Bantu workers were to be allowed to compete with white workers. That is the basis of the United Party’s policy, and that is the axis on which the entire attack of the United Party on the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs turns. It does not so much concern this or that or our telephone shortage. Basically the attack is being launched as a result of the shortage of staff in the Post Office. The result is that this is the situation which the United Party wants to exploit to-day. I shall point this out to the hon. member. Here is his Hansard, and I am quoting it—

At the moment 2,094 posts are being filled by non-Whites, of which 1,068 are being filled by Bantu. These posts were previously filled by Whites.

Are you worried?

Replying to that interjection does not worry me in the least. Our policy is very clear. Through its poor administration this Government has confronted the Post Office and the country with two alternatives only, either general collapse …

Surely the hon. member cannot say that we are on the verge of a collapse. How sporadic has the development of the Post Office over the past two years not been!

Sporadic?

No, I meant the development was dynamic and that it will develop even further. The foundation has now been laid for the real development of the Post Office in future. The other alternative which the hon member stated in his speech here was the employment of non-Whites in posts which were created for Whites.

It is under this Government that there are only those two alternatives; we of course have better alternatives.

The hon. member claims that under the United Party Government there will be a better alternative. But I wonder how they are going to carry it into effect. Let me quote to the hon. member what his own leader said in King William’s Town. He said there: “Vote for Nats a blow to the economy” and went on to say—

We also say that we will give them a better income, but in a different way to that advocated by the Opposition.

In what way? What will the difference be?

This is not an ordinary Budget debate, but the Third Reading debate on the Post Office Appropriation. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

That is the position, and the axis on which everything revolves. Their attacks are being launched on the basis of the manpower shortage, in this case in the Post Office. We will solve this problem, but most certainly not in the way advocated here by the hon-member. That is most certain. The United Party advocates that non-Whites should be taken on in the Post Office unconditionally. The Post Office is, from the nature of the case, a highly technical organization where untrained labour cannot be used. I know the hon. member said that the Blacks must be trained, but the hon. member for South Coast objects vehemently to that.

But you are also training people—in Verulam and in Orlando.

But not with a view to the Blacks replacing the Whites. That is where the difference lies. You would very much like a free economy where the non-Whites can compete with the Whites. That is the United Party’s policy. [Interjections.] I have this booklet here: “The answer: If you want it, we have it,” and I can add: “If you do get it, you have had it.” [Interjections.] Yes, I read this little book. In the meanwhile the conditions of service of Post Office staff have been improved and gradually the staff shortage will be supplemented. At private branch exchanges even blind and physically handicapped people are being used to-day. At large exchanges the switchboard is too big for them and they cannot therefore be used there. In addition automatic exchanges are being installed and certain cable-laying works are being given out on contract. In addition computers and cancelling machines are toeing employed, and mopeds are being used for the delivery of mail—all these things are being applied in an attempt to overcome, to a certain extent, the labour problem.

To a certain extent?

Yes. In due course all things will be improved further. Let me ask the hon. member straight out, why has the South African economy grown until it is bursting at the seams to-day? It is due to the National Party that South Africa simply had to grow economically. It is due to the National Party that the economy of our country is bursting at the seams. Let me remind the hon. member of the fact that when General Hertzog at the time already said “South Africa first”, they said that South Africa should be dependent upon imports. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. It is history to-day.

Bring us the proof.

Go and read Hansard. But to return to the staff position. To-day unrestricted use is also being made of female labour in order to supplement the existing staff. Telephone services have increased and the total investment in the Post Office has increased by 20 per cent. The telephone backlog has been eliminated, even passed. As a result, however, of the tremendous growth rate, many new applications have come in again and are on the waiting list. That is therefore what is causing the shortage of telephones—a higher standard of living.

Like a dog chasing its own tail but never able to catch it.

Actually it is a turncoat fox; that is what I see in the United Party. The hon. member also discussed television. But surely a commission was appointed to institute an investigation into that matter. Is the hon. member not satisfied with that? Is his party not satisfied with that? In due course, when the commission has given its final answer, we will all accept that.

But we want television.

If the commission recommends that television should be introduced, will the hon. member be satisfied with that?

In that case, yes.

The hon. member is prejudiced …

If the commission were to recommend that television should not be introduced, would you agree with that?

I will be satisfied with the decision of the Government and of the commission, for it was appointed by the Minister and we all have confidence in it. Another point made by the hon. member was in connection with the increase in tariffs. Increasing tariffs is a world tendency—tariffs are being increased everywhere. It is therefore not only the Post Office that is doing this. This is something which must come and which will continue. Post Office tariffs must be increased in order to adjust to present circumstances. Do hon. members expect that the tariffs must remain as they were 25 to 30 years ago? Is that fair to the Post Office? Surely it is very unfair to the Post Office. That is why it is very important that tariffs should toe adjusted to present-day circumstances. Hon. members heard a moment ago that we are living-in: an inflationistic situation. The result is that these tariffs must be adjusted to present-day circumstances. The hon. member spoke very much at random, but I want to say here to-day, and hon. members will begin to notice this by next year, that the Post Office under the guidance of this hon. Minister is going to forge ahead and make progress. Over a few years hon. members will not recognize it, the Post Office will have made such progress. Then those hon. members will have much less criticism to level at it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove is the shadow Minister of Posts and Telegraphs of the official Opposition. Now that the hon. member for Orange Grove is a front-bencher with enhanced status, I expected him to concentrate harder on and make a more thorough study of the entire Post Office Budget. I expected an hon. member who has been sitting in this House for many years to concentrate on the actual financial set-up in the Budget as such. I challenge the hon. member to go through his Second Reading and his Third Reading speeches, for then he will find that what he dished up to the House in the Third Reading was merely a repetition of his Second Reading speeches, only with more venom. They were identical speeches. It was the same speech, in which he made many wild accusations.

From the outset he described this Budget as a lobster Budget. A lobster Budget it is most certainly not. This Budget shows dynamic progress in the Post Office. The only lobster which will remain after this debate, is the hon. member for Orange Grove and the usual fate that befalls a lobster is to be plunged into a pot of boiling water. That is what will happen because the hon. member did not make use of a scientific approach and facts, but made use of wild accusations and statements. He dragged in the Broederbond on the one hand and another organization on the other. Then it was the S.A.B.C., and then it was television. His actions caused confusion, but nothing was analysed. I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that I want to take him back for a moment to their days in 1948. I think it is important because the hon. member wants to pretend that our telecommunication services, and particularly our telephone services in South Africa are in a critically poor condition. I want to prove very clearly to him that in 1948 there were 318,581 telephones in the country. On 31st March, 1971 there will be 1,600,000 telephones.

Give us the figure for 1930 as well.

These figures are in respect of 1948. In other words, they are in respect of the U.P. regime. I want to indicate what the position really was. The increase in our white population between 1948 and the present year has been almost 46 per cent. Our telephone services increased by 400 per cent. Does the hon. member know what that means if one analysis if? It means that people to-day are far more telephone conscious than they were in those days. Eight times the number of people are interested in a telephone to-day and realize the necessity of a telephone service than was the case in 1948. In 1948 they were dealing with an exceedingly large shortage of 20 per cent. We usually have 5 per cent shortage. I want to emphasize that during their regime there was not the telephone consciousness and the necessity for a telephone service which there is to-day.

But this is not peculiar to South Africa. Let us see what the English are saying about this matter. I want to refer to a publication by the English Post Office with the title “Post Office Cost of Communication: The Approach”. From this we will learn what happened in England. Those hon. members will never admit here that there is a terrible shortage of telephones throughout the entire world because they are to-day a popular commodity. I am quoting from this publication:

In other words, they are experiencing the same problem. Thus, England is experiencing the same problem.

Now, the hon. member for Orange Grove has stated that we are static as regards our whole concept of expansion in the Post Office. I want to prove to him that he is quite wrong by referring to the capital expenditure on the telecommunications system. The figures which I now want to furnish do not include the amounts which were spent on land and buildings. In 1962-’63 R19 million was spent. In 1963-’64 R20.4 million and in 1964-’65 R24.7 million. So capital expenditure slowly increased until in 1968-’69 the amount reached the total of R39 million. In 1969-’70 it was R24 million and in 1970-’71 it increased to R71.7 million.

And the shortage is becoming more and more acute.

But this is the amount which was spent on telecommunications in order to expand the service and to make it a more effective service. That hon. member cannot deny that these amounts which were spent are large amounts.

Why is the shortage still increasing?

There are various reasons for this growing shortage. We have had conditions of inflation in South Africa and there has been tremendous growth in various spheres. It is not so easy to make telecommunication services keep pace with this growth, particularly not with an Opposition such as this country has. I remember only too well how hon. members on that side of the House objected in 1966 to capital expenditure by the State. The hon. member for Green Point objected on every occasion to the capital expenditure of the Government. They kept on emphasizing inflation, and asked what was going to become of the poor. We were continually being warned that we were spending too much. But I want to refer again to these figures. Over a period of three years, to the end of March 1971, a total of R165 million has and will have been spent. That is 33⅓ Per cent more than the estimated expenditure for this period. This was during the present Minister’s period of office. Now it is even being said that he is in reverse gear. Surely that is not true. Would the hon. member for Orange Grove please tell me whether he thinks this amount which is being spent on telecommunications is a small amount in relation to State expenditure as a whole?

It is not enough, for the shortage is still growing.

Even if we have spent R250 million, we would still have had the shortage, because there are other concurrent factors which have to be borne in mind. Everything cannot be done at once because that would cause a confused situation. But that is the problem with hon. members on that side of the House. Those hon. members profess that if they had the capital and the labour at their disposal, they would remedy this situation overnight. But surely there is planning which has to be done; the equipment has to be manufactured. There are numerous other aspects which have to brought into context. But they want to wrest everything out of context. What do we find now? We find that spending over the past three years has been double the amount which was spent during the previous three years.

Then the hon. member for Orange Grove made a very wild statement. He took it amiss of the hon. the Minister because the Minister had financed almost 50 per cent of the capital works from the revenue account. According to the hon. member for Orange Grove the Minister employed his finances incorrectly. I would say that that was a very sound policy on the part of the Minister. If that hon. member were to look at the Post Office Readjustment Act he will find that this Act provides that the repayments on capital loans by the Treasury shall take place over a period of 20 years. Reference was made here to-day to the tendency to increased rates of interest throughout the entire world. We also heard this afternoon about a shortage of capital throughout the entire world. Is it not something wonderful that the finances of the Post Office are so fundamentally sound that we can finance almost 50 per cent of the capital works from revenue surpluses? That is an achievement. That hon. member ought to have had the magnanimity to have congratulated the hon. the Minister, although they differed on television, the S.A.B.C., etc. He could at least have told the Minister that as far as finances were concerned, the hon. the Minister had a good head on his shoulders. But that hon. member refused to do so. Hon. members on that side of the House tried to act disparagingly and intimated that the hon. the Minister had not performed his duties. Sir, it is in itself an economic achievement when capital expenditure can be met from revenue account.

He made R6 million from wrong numbers.

I want to inform the hon. member for Orange Grove that expenditure from revenue account amounted to 30 per cent last year. This year it is 50 per cent. That is a wonderful achievement. I know the hon. member will say at once that there has been an increase in tariffs. But the tariffs which were increased, are tariffs which had not been touched for the past 20 years. Show me any other commodity in the Republic which has not become more expensive in those 20 years. For the past 20 years those tariffs had not been touched. The hon. member for Orange Grove does not realize this. What impressed me was that the tariffs which were in fact increased did not have an adverse effect on the ordinary man in the street, but more so on the strong business man, the man who sends out numerous pamphlets. That is the man who has been hit the hardest. But the ordinary man in the street is not being hit so hard by the application of increased tariffs.

Are we no longer allowed to issue pamphlets?

The National Party is so fundamentally sound that we do not need to send out all the nonsensical pamphlets which that hon. member sends out. It does not affect us as much as it affects their party.

But, Sir, I want to emphasize here that telecommunications are a very important aspect of the future of our entire nation. Telecommunications will have to be given pride of place because in this modern age, as we found in England as well, they have become a general necessity. It has become part of the civilization of the 70’s. That is why the Post Office must not be viewed in the same light as other government departments are viewed. That is why such strict measures against inflation should not be applied as far as this Department is concerned. I am convinced that if the hon. the Minister were to proceed on the same course he has been following, i.e. to carry out his task with far-sightedness and purpose …

It is the same course …

The hon. member for Simonstown always has a very pleasant smile, but he is the most underhand little politician I have ever seen in my life. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. The hon. member for Simonstown has a way of always acting in a very friendly way here with a broad smile, but politically he impresses no one. But I shall leave it at that.

I want to emphasize that under this hon. Minister the entire department is being built on a foundation which is necessary for the future of this Republic. Attention is not only being given to telephone services. Attention is also being given to the expansion of these services. If one considers the micro-wave system and all kinds of scientific developments which have taken place over the past few years, one is amazed that a department can develop to such an extent in such a short period of time as this Department has done. The hon. member for Orange Grove emphasized the alarming shortage of telephones. It is true that there is a shortage. We refuse to be dishonest. There is a shortage, but of what avail is it installing telephones when a person does not have the carrying capacity in the entire machinery to be able to maintain it. That is what the problem to-day is. We are dealing with the carrying capacity of the telecommunications system. It requires large capital expenditure. Preference must be given to the carrying capacity before an efficient service can be supplied. Of what avail is it to have a telephone and not get any service out of it? Hon. members must realize that the carrying capacity, and the efficiency of this service must come first.

How long have you been in power?

We have been in power since 1948. What hon. members opposite must never discuss, is a telephone. During the war years the United Party was more interested in barbed wire than in telephone wires. I want to content myself by congratulating the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff, on this Budget. It is a Budget which in the seventies is going to indicate the course taken by South Africa, a course of growth and stability and a course which has been determined by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I want to refer to an editorial which commented on my Estimates relating to telephone shortages. It is an editorial which appeared in The Argus last night. In this editorial reference was made to the tremendous telephone shortage prevailing in South Africa, and at the same time the suggestion was made that the telephone shortages throughout Europe and North America had been met years ago. I want to tell The Argus …

Order!

No, I am quite entitled to say this. The hon. member must not waste my time. I want to tell The Argus that if they are in possession of all the facts of the case, and they ought to be, they will know, in writing on such a subject, that in a country such as West Germany there is a shortage of half a million telephones. If they are informed, they ought to know that the quality of the telephone service in the largest American cities, where one cannot get a dialing tone for hours on end, is extremely poor; they ought to know that having applied for a telephone in London, one waits up to three years before it is installed. I want to tell The Argus this afternoon that it is guilty of a disgraceful untruth. This is something which I cannot but describe as a disgraceful lie, which it passed on to its readers and the public. I want to challenge The Argus to reprint in its columns an article on telephone services published in The Sunday Times of London on 1st March, 1970, in order that the public of South Africa and its readers may learn the truth about this terribly disgraceful untruth that was published in that paper.

The hon. member for Orange Grove told me this afternoon that I had put certain questions to him since I apparently realized that the United Party would soon be in power. If anybody in this country had ever been under that wrong impression, and that the hon. member for Orange Grove would ever become Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, that impression was destroyed this afternoon by that hon. member himself. The hon. member for Orange Grove had a golden opportunity—if he really believes that the United Party will be in power soon—to tell the people of South Africa how he and his party would solve the staff problem in the Post Office. Yesterday I pointedly asked him four questions. As he was pleading for the training of non-Whites, I asked him whether he wanted me to train non-Whites in order that they might serve Whites over the counters of white post offices; I asked him whether he wanted me to train non-Whites as telephone mechanics, technicians and engineers; I asked him—a very easy question, to which Senator Woolf had the courage of his convictions to reply in the Other Place—whether he wanted me to train non-White telephonists in order that they might service white telephone subscribers in South Africa.

But you are doing that in Verulam.

Yes, I am doing it there in pursuance of my policy. Verulam is an Indian area, and we are using Indian staff to serve their own people. This comes within the scope of our policy.

May I put a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to questions. Sir, this afternoon the hon. member for Orange Grove had the opportunity to reply unequivocally to those questions, and he did not avail himself of the opportunity …

Your facts are wrong.

… because they may not reply to those questions; because they are unable to reply; because they are a party of double-talkers; because they are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds—the only thing is that they are much worse at hunting that at running—and because theirs is a party which does not have a policy in regard to these matters, which merely wants to create a psychosis of a labour crisis, without making any positive suggestions. That is why they cannot reply to those questions, and that is why I am saying to the hon. member for Orange Grove: Oh, no, my friend, you do not look like a possible Minister of Posts and Telegraphs; much less does your party look capable of ever governing this country again! Sir, on what did the hon. member waste his time this afternoon? He came forward with repetitions of old accusations, rehashes of old arguments and the repetition of charges to which I had already replied. His arguments were exactly the same, and I replied to them in my reply to the Second Reading debate already. In fact, I have nothing new to reply to this afternoon.

The hon. member said that we should rather state our policy. Our policy in regard to the employment of non-white labour in the Post Office is quite simple. Our policy is that communities be served by their own people. Hon. members opposite are always trying to prove here that our policy of separate development is actually breaking down, because white posts are allegedly being filled by non-Whites. Sir, what is the position? As a result of the very implementation of the policy of separate development, one has the position that there are non-Whites who are being placed in white posts. Hon members on that side have never reflected on this. Their approach to this whole matter is too superficial, and as a party they are too superficial to discuss and reflect on these matters and, furthermore, they are too divided amongst themselves to arrive at a solution. In 1948 there were 13 non-White post offices in South Africa: in 1970 there were 688 non-white post offices. This was effected in the course of the implementation of our policy. But the manning of those non-White post offices required that non-Whites—Bantu, Coloureds and Indians—be appointed to those posts, but now hon. members opposite are using this argument: “The fact that you have non-Whites in White posts, is the best proof that your policy is braking down.” Sir, it is the best proof that our policy is succeeding.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know from me—he did not come back to this point again to-day—whether ‘I would look after the interests of the staff in these times of rising costs of living. Mr. Speaker, I deliberately afforded the hon. member for Orang Grove the opportunity, by waiting until after the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance this afternoon, to criticize me and to ask me what I was going to do in respect of the salaries of the Post Office staff. He neglected his duty shamefully, if he ever had a duty towards the Post Office staff. [Interjections.] The hon. member says he asked me on Monday. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he need not concern himself about the Post Office staff at all. The four Post Office staff associations are quite capable of looking after the interests of their members. Apart from that, the Post Office staff know that they have a sympathetic Minister who will ensure that they receive their rightful share. In fact, the salaries and the conditions of service of the Post Office staff were improved by more than R14 million in 1969, the largest amount in a single year which has ever in the history of the Post Office been granted to its staff. In addition to that, also for the first time in its history, a start was made with a distinctive and independent structure of posts for certain sections of the staff to fit in with the distinctiveness of the service of the Post Office. Furthermore, opportunities for promotion for the staff were extended considerably, and the status of the Postmaster-General, for instance, was raised to the second highest in the services of the State. The prospects of the staff were improved further in that the salary scales of seven posts were raised, except that of the Postmaster-General, which is equivalent to the salary of a head of a department. Apart from this a housing scheme of their own was introduced for the officials of the Department for the first time in 1969. Furthermore, in 1968 the staff of the Post Office were divorced entirely from the Public Service and from the control of the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition knows very well that I did these things. They know that this is the case, for during the recent general election they found that amongst members of the Post Office staff there were no grievances and dissatisfaction which they could exploit for political purposes.

Sir, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has failed to put this simple question to me, I want to take this opportunity—and if there is an improvement in the salaries of the Post Offices staff, he should not come here next year and say that he asked for it …

I am asking for it now.

Do you see. Sir, how they are falling for the votes of the staff? I want to say on this occasion that I am giving serious consideration to this matter, and I can give the hon. member the assurance, and I should like to give the Post Office staff the assurance, that I shall not leave them in the lurch and that I shall not shake the confidence they have been placing in me.

Before or after October?

Hon. members opposite had ample opportunity to speak, and they did not ask this question. They allowed that opportunity to slip by. I am only replying to questions that were put to me.

Now, the hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know what I was doing to solve the labour position in the Post Office. This is another question that was put on a very late occasion, for in this respect, too, I could have given him a detailed explanation on a previous occasion. I could have told him, for pages and pages on end, what had been done in respect of automation and the training of the staff, improved methods of training and improved working methods that had been introduced, assistance granted in regard to scholarships, the recruitment of staff in the interior and abroad, improved conditions of service and salaries, the employment of ladies, the re-employment of retired members of staff and former members of staff who had resigned, and the employment of temporary staff.

How many hours of overtime did it take up to have that speech prepared by officials of the Department?

That does not concern you at all, and I did not make a speech on those matters. I compiled all these particulars in the very expectation that you would ask me about them, but the Opposition allowed this opportunity to slip by, and I am not in a position now to reply fully to these matters. What were the results of these attempts that had been made? I want to mention to the hon. member for Orange Grove the most important entrance grades in the Post Office, i.e. those of technician, pupil technician, clerk, telephone mechanic, pupil telephone mechanic, female assistant, male telephonist, female telephonist —all of them Whites. I cannot give the individual figures, because that would take up too much time. but I shall give the aggregate. In 1067-’63 the number of resignations from these grades was 6,069, and the number of appointments to these grades—in other words, those who entered the service—was 8,949. In 1968-’69 the number of resignations was 6,161, and the number of appointments was 9,074. In 1969-’70 the number of resignations was 5,799, and the number of appointments was 9,497. Therefore, you see, Sir, that although there was, over the past number of years, a downward trend in the resignations of the staff in these important entrance grades, there was an increase in the number of newcomers to the Post Office. This is the result of all the things I mentioned in reply to the hon. member’s question as to what I was actually doing at the moment in order to improve the position. This is what I am doing, and I hope that even he will be satisfied with it. The only difficulty which is being experienced, is one which I now want to repeat to the hon. member, because he will try to wrest this thing from its context again—he cannot help it: he does it time and again; that is his nature. But, before he misconstrues these figures again, I just want to tell him as I quite rightly remarked in my reply to the Second Reading, that the economic development has made such exacting demands on the staff of the Post office that even these improvements in the staff position could still not meet our staff requirements. We still need many more people.

The hon. member said he had noticed that the Post Office was not represented on the Economic Advisory Council. The hon. member should rather delve a little deeper into these matters; then he would perhaps be able to argue more intelligently. As I said on a previous occasion, through the planning division of my Department-—the division that was established in the Department by me—proper liaison is being maintained with the Economic Advisory Council and all the bodies and persons in the Department of Planning that are charged with this matter. He need not concern himself about my having neglected my duty in this respect.

But other Government Departments are represented on that council.

Not all Government Departments are represented on that council. But if we had granted representation on that council to all Government Departments, it would have been possible for the hon. member to raise objections on the grounds that this was merely another departmental commission and that commerce and industry should also have had better representation on it.

Then the hon. member said that the Post Office had to be put into top gear and then the Government had to be kicked out. Really, this is a terrible admission. He himself does not believe that he is capable of putting the Post Office into top gear; he wants me to do it, and only after that will they kick us out. He rather put the cart before the horse in that respect. For the umpteenth time I want to ask the hon. member this question. The hon. member is so fond of issuing Press statements from time to time. If at some stage or another during this Session it will be possible for the hon. member to reach agreement with his caucus as to what their reply in regard to the labour position is to be, would he be so kind as to say in a Press statement what his reply is to all my questions? If the hon. member contemplates making another Press statement, he might as well make one in regard to this matter. But I think we shall wait a long time for it. The hon. member asked again why I had wasted his time when I asked him to quote my words fully after the hon. member for Carletonville had made an interjection here and I had said “Yes”, and when he omitted the words to the effect that they had a guilty conscience about the matter. My intention was merely that he had to read the whole story, for it shows very clearly that there is quite a difference between my views and the hon. member’s views on what constitutes politics and what constitutes party-politics.

Are politics National Party politics?

No; politics are concerned with the national interests of South Africa, but it is because the National Party represents the national interests of South Africa that I can say that the National Party also stands for the national interests of South Africa. But the hon. member’s party does not stand for the national interests of South Africa,, as he once again illustrated strikingly this afternoon. When I reprimanded The Argus in regard to a matter which actually amounted to slandering South Africa, he was the first to protect The Argus.

Order! The hon. the Minister must come back to the Third Reading.

The hon. member also spoke about the elimination of the telephone shortage, and he read out my words. I made it clear that this was subject to two conditions. I mentioned five years, and I have only been the Minister for two and a half years. The two conditions, as he knows very well, are that I said, in the first place, provided that I can obtain the staff. I could not obtain the staff I needed, but the hon. member will agree with me that I accomplished a great deal with the staff I had, if he has regard to the way capital expenditure increased. In the second place, I told the hon. member that an unforeseen circumstance had arisen here, i.e. this rising demand for telephone services all over the world. This was something unforeseen, Sir. It is only recently that this demand has arisen all over the world. There was, in one year’s time, a rise of 12 per cent on the Witwatersrand. These are unforeseen circumstances, and you will be able to understand, Sir, how these circumstances have congested our exchanges and how they are affecting the quality of the service. If the hon. member wants to argue with me about it, he must give me a reply to the following question, and I hope the hon. member will. Does the hon. member want us to wipe out the waiting list for telephones, or does he want service of a good quality in South Africa?

But you yourself did after all say that, if you gave telephones to all the people who wanted them, they would receive dead telephones. What use would it be then?

You see, Sir, he does not give a direct reply. My aim is, of course, to render a good service and to give a telephone to everybody who wants one. And that will happen within five or six years from 1968.

Would everybody who wanted a telephone then be able to get one, and would you ensure a good service?

Yes, that goes without saying.

Do you mean that by 1973 the telephone waiting list will for the most part have been wiped out, and that there will, at the same time, be a good service?

I have always said that the telephone shortage would start showing a downward trend as from 1973. The hon. member will see this. But in a growing and developing country there will always be a demand for telephones. Furthermore, the better one’s service, the greater the demand. There: are approximately 2,000 exchanges in this country. If every exchange has a waiting list of only 20 names, it means that we already have 20,000 people on the waiting list. I also told the hon. member—and the hon. member is, after all, intelligent enough to understand this—that in the six urban areas there was a shortage of 66,000 telephones, and that, in spite of the fact that we had provided 85,000 telephones, we still had a shortage of 71,000 on our hands at present. If the growth of the South African economy had not been so rapid, there would definitely not have been so many names on the waiting list. If this were not the case, surely even the hon. member would be able to understand that the provision of 85,000 telephones would have wiped out completely a waiting list of 66,000.

But the waiting list is growing continually.

Precisely. Why?—be cause we continually have economic development at a high rate. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Orange Grove allowed the opportunity to slip by to show the House and the electorate that there is any hope for them at all of looking like a party which will be able to govern in the near future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the administration of justice is a matter with regard to which the administration of the affairs of the territory of South-West Africa is carried on, in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969 (Act No. 25 of 1969), by the Minister of Justice. In terms of the Maintenance Act, 1963, every magistrate’s court is within its area of jurisdiction a maintenance court for the purposes of the Maintenance Act. The Maintenance Act, however, does not apply in the territory of South-West Africa, and affairs of this nature are regulated in terms of the Wives and Children Protection and Maintenance Ordinance, 1927, of the Territory. With a view to uniformity and efficiency, the Maintenance Act is now being made applicable to the Territory in terms of clause 4 of the Bill now before this House.

The courts in the Territory corresponding to the courts of Bantu Affairs Commissioners in the Republic, are still known as courts of Native Commissioners. Therefore it is necessary to supplement in a suitable way any reference to a court of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner in the Act. This is being done by clause 1.

The Bantu Administration Act, 1927, does not apply in the Territory, but the Native Administration Proclamation, 1928, of the Territory does apply. An adjustment in this regard is being made in clause 2.

In view of the fact that a Bantu Appeal Court does not function in the Territory, it is necessary to supplement section 7 of the Act so as to make provision for appeals to the South-West Africa Division of the Supreme Court where a court of a Native Commissioner has acted as a maintenance court. This is being done by clause 3.

Clause 6 provides for the repeal of laws of the Territory relating to the matter in question, as well as for the necessary transitory provisions, whereas clause 7 makes provision for a date on which the Act shall come into operation. In order to supplement the rules for maintenance courts suitably, it is necessary to cause the commencement of this Bill to coincide with that of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first of a series of Bills which is before us this afternoon to apply several of the laws applying in the Republic to South-West Africa. While we objected to the principle which was adopted by this Parliament at the time, that is now an established principle and consequently we offer no objection to this Bill at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as it was the object of the Maintenance Amendment Bill, 1970, to apply the Maintenance Act, 1963, to the territory of South-West Africa for purposes of uniformity and efficiency, so it is, inter alia, the object of this Bill to apply the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, 1963, to the Territory. As hon. members know, the administration of justice, including matters relating to the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, is one of the matters with regard to which the administration and the affairs of the territory of South-West Africa is carried on, in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, by the Minister of Justice. The application of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act in the Territory is being effected by clauses 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the Bill.

It is, however, necessary to effect two other essential amendments to the Act concerned at the same time. In terms of section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, 1963, maintenance orders made in a proclaimed country have to be transmitted to the Minister of Justice by the “Secretary of State” or the “officer administering the government of such country” for transmission to a maintenance court. In terms of sections 7 and 8 (2) of that Act, South African maintenance orders, in turn, have to be transmitted by the court concerned to the Minister for transmission to the “Secretary of State” or the “officer administering the government of such country”.

It appears that the designations “Secretary of State” and “officer administering the government” have a limited meaning and that they are not suitable designations in respect of all countries or territories. The most important considerations which apply in respect of any request for the enforcement of a maintenance order appear to be, firstly, that the request should be official and, secondly, that it should be genuine. The best way of ensuring that every request is official and genuine, is to provide that the documents concerned, should be transmitted through diplomatic channels from one authority to another. Clauses 2, 4 and 5 of the Bill relate to this. It is, of course, possible to ask in this regard: What will the position be when there is no diplomatic tie between the Republic and a specific country? In reply to this we may say that contact between the Republic and the country concerned, may be established at suitable centres abroad.

In terms of section 5 of the Act, Sir, maintenance orders are deemed to be payable in the first instance to the clerk of the maintenance court where the order has been registered or confirmed. The provision is creating problems in cases where the persons concerned have moved to other places. Not only does the person subject to the maintenance orders have to send the money to a place other than the one at which he is living, but in default of payment evidence sometimes has to be obtained from remote places, in order of the fact that the accused is usually charged in the court of the district in which he is resident. Therefore an amendment is being elected to clause 3, in terms of which the maintenance money will be payable to the clerk of the maintenance court designated from time to time by the court where an order is registered or confirmed. In the same clause provision is also being made for the person concerned to be informed where he is to make payments in future.

In terms of clause 9 this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The object is for both the Maintenance Amendment Bill, 1970, and this Bill to come into operation on the same day.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the Maintenance Amendment Bill, and for the same reason, the Official Opposition offers no objection to this Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment in paragraph (b) in clause 1 flows from a case heard by the Circuit Court at Witrivier during 1968. The accused in the case concerned, was charged with the contravention of section 1 (a) of the Witchcraft Suppression Act, 1957, and alternatively with the contravention of section 1 (e), now numbered paragraph (f), of that Act. The charge in terms of section 1 (a) was that the accused had illegally imputed to a certain Bantu man the use of supernatural means in causing injury to a certain Bantu woman, or that he had named or indicated the said Bantu man as a wizard. From the evidence in the case, it appeared that the Bantu woman had disappeared. Her son, and 24 others, consulted the accused, known as a Bantu soothsayer, in order to ascertain what had happened to his mother. After the payment of a sum of money, the accused danced throughout the night and then indicated the Bantu man, to whom I referred earlier on, as the person who had killed the Bantu woman. The next day the son killed the Bantu man who had been indicated by the accused as the murderer of the son’s mother. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The evidence against the accused did not reveal that the accused, as charged, had imputed to someone else the use of supernatural means in causing injury or damage to someone else or that he had named or indicated the Bantu man concerned as a wizard. What the accused did, in fact, do, was to pretend that he, the accused, used supernatural power to indicate the Bantu man as the murderer of the woman.

Consequently the accused could not be convicted on the main charge, and was convicted on the lesser alternative charge, i.e. the contravention of section 1 (e) of the Act, in that he pretended for gain to exercise or use some kind of supernatural power, witchcraft or sorcery. In this case the accused consequently escaped a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years, and could be convicted only under paragraph (e), now numbered (f), which prescribes a penalty of a fine not exceeding R200 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Therefore, in order to eliminate a shortcoming revealed by paragraph (a) of section 1 of the Act, a new paragraph (b) is being inserted. The amendment in paragraph (a) of section 1 is merely an improvement in the wording.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has indicated the blind spot which has existed in the law relating to witchcraft and the suppression of it. This is a very important matter so far as the Bantu people are concerned. Those of us who practise in the courts, will appreciate that the belief in witchcraft plays a very real part in the lives of the Bantu people. More than that, there are many cases arising from the death of a number of people caused by the belief in witchcraft, that end up in the Supreme Court. Indeed, our doctrine of extenuating circumstances in the law of murder owes its origin to the fact that the Bantu believed in witchcraft. This was considered to be an extenuating circumstance.

There are a number of aspects of clause 1 which I think more properly can be debated at the Committee Stage. But one of the things that does disturb one when one first looks at the wording of paragraph (b) of the new section I, is the word “pretends” as it appears in the sentence “any person who—in the circumstances indicating that he pretends to use any supernatural: powers, it seems to indicate that there are people who can use supernatural powers. So long as they are not just pretending that they use them and feel that they are using them and can prove it, then perhaps they are not committing the offence which is contemplated. This is not the occasion to discuss the exact word. It is a matter which we will deal with in the Committee Stage. But prima facie, it does seem to us that if it is an offence to pretend to do something, it is not an offence if in fact you are doing that very thing. It is the pretending that is the offence. In the strange circumstances which arise in all these cases, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give his attention to this clause before the Committee Stage, so that we can more usefully discuss it there. We have no objection to the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion we are dealing with an amending Bill. The principal Act was passed as long ago as 1957. In considering this amending Bill, it is essential that we should have regard also to the fact that witchcraft, or so-called witchcraft, went through its own stages of development throughout the world. On the basis of the facts which the hon. the Minister supplied here this afternoon, it has become essential at this stage for an amendment to be effected so as to when the powers under the Act and so as to widen the basis of the Act, because the people who can practise so-called witchcraft have become cunning in the course of time. The question of gain is, of course, involved in this. These people practise so-called witchcraft mainly because of the gain involved.

I say it has become essential to widen the field of the Act. But, it may interest the house to know that in the near future we shall perhaps have to go even further than this in widening this field. I should like to quote from a court case heard in one of our neighbouring states, i.e. Rhodesia, as reported in the law reports in South Africa. This was a case where a certain Bantu appealed against a sentence. I quote only a paragraph or two in order to explain the situation to hon. members—

Typical, Mr. Speaker,

The consequences of this so-called soothsayer’s indicating the spirit of the person who had allegedly caused the death of the child, were that the person concerned committed suicide the next day. The accused in this case was then charged with indicating this Mangumba as a witchdoctor or a wizard. He was convicted in an inferior court, but then appealed against the sentence. In the Appeal Court he was asked very clearly whether he had alleged that Mangumba possessed supernatural powers. I read that he had said, “No”. What he had said, in fact, was that a spirit had emanated from Mangumba and that this spirit was file killer.

It is clear that here we are faced with something else again, with something different to what we at this stage may be envisaging to combat by means of this amendment to the Act, the amendment which this House is considering at the moment. If we content ourselves with the word we have in the Afrikaans version of the Act, i.e. “voorgee” and I share in the view of the hon. member for Durban (North) that a better word may be used in the English version, and read it in conjunction with the other definitions, I believe we shall perhaps be able to combat to a large extent this new tendency in witchcraft which has manifested itself. Then a person will no longer be able to indicate some other person’s spirit as the murderer. However, we must have regard to the fact that we are dealing with something ingrained in a person’s mind. That something which is ingrained in a person’s mind, is not something which can be combated easily. We must realize that it will develop in the course of time because of the very fact that material gain is involved. Therefore it is so essential for us to supplement this Act by means of the present amendment to its provisions, and it will probably be necessary for us to supplement it again in future.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana, who has just made his maiden speech. It is particular privilege to me in the sense that I have known the hon. member for many years, indeed, I know him intimately. In fact, we practised together. The way in which he put forward his case here this afternoon, makes it clear to one and all that he is going to make a great contribution in this House in the sphere of law. I want to congratulate him and tell him that if he studies matters and advocates and advance his case as he did here this afternoon, a very fine career is awaiting him in this House.

I want to thank the Opposition for supporting these amendments, with one reservation. Their side in the Other Place did the same thing. There were misgivings about the word “pretend”. In the Afrikaans version this difficulty does not exist. Other words which may be more suitable have been mentioned to me, for example “purports” and “holds out”, and so forth. However, the fact of the matter is that the word “pretend” is used throughout in the rest of the Bill. I do not think the word “pretend” is being used here in the sense of “voorgee”-All we have to prove, is that circumstances were such that injury had been caused to a third person. Evidence will be led that the accused did this and that, and that as a result of that injury was caused to a third person, but we can have further discussions on this point to-morrow. The only difficulty I have is that the word “pretend” is used throughout in the English version.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, section 10 (1) (c) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959— which Act also applies in the territory of South-West Africa—provides that no person shall be appointed as a Judge or an Acting Judge of the South-West Africa division of the Supreme Court except after consultation with the Administrator of the territory of South-West Africa.

In terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, the administration of justice in the territory of South-West Africa is a scheduled matter vested in the Minister of Justice. Section 19 (2) of that Act provides that for the purposes of any law in force in the territory of South-West Africa, in as far as it relates to any scheduled matter, any reference to the “Administrator” shall be construed as a reference to the “Minister” who carries on the administration of the matter concerned. From this it follows that the need for the provision contained in section 10 (1) (c) of the Supreme Court Act falls away, and provision is therefore being made for its deletion in paragraph (a) of clause 1 of the Bill now before this House.

While I am dealing with amendments regarding South-West Africa, Sir, I also refer to clause 5 of the Bill. Section 45 (3) of the Supreme Court Act provides that all expenditure incurred in connection with the South-West Africa division of the Supreme Court shall be paid out of the territory revenue fund. In the light of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, the need for this provision also falls away.

I now return to clause 1 of the Bill. Paragraph (b) of that clause effects an amendment to the oath of office a Judge has to take. In the oath of office which a Judge takes, he pledges, inter alia, that he will administer justice to all persons alike in accordance with the law and customs of the Republic. In the case of a Judge of the South-West Africa division, he pledges that he will administer justice in accordance with the law and customs of the territory of South-West Africa. The present wording of the oath of office therefore means that if a Judge is transferred from a division of the Supreme Court in the Republic to the South-West Africa division, or vice versa, he must take an oath again with regard to the application of the law and customs of the territory to which he has been transferred. The amendment in paragraph (b) of clause 1 will have the effect that a Judge will have to take the oath only once.

That brings me to clause 2. Section 19 of the Supreme Court Act grants a provincial or local division jurisdiction in and over all persons residing or being in and all causes arising within its area of jurisdiction, and so forth. The rules regulating the proceedings of the various provincial and local division of the Supreme Court, provide for the joinder of parties and causes of action, consolidation of actions and so forth. The Association of Law Societies of South Africa indicated that cases have arisen where an action against a party was instituted in a competent court, but that a further defendant could not be joined, as the summonsing court did not have jurisdiction in respect of the defendant. The Association of Law Societies further indicated that this defeated the whole purpose of joinder, and suggested that the jurisdiction of the court should be extended in order to make provision for such cases.

The Bench and the General Council of the Bar of South Africa were then consulted. The amendment suggested by the Association of Law Societies has their support. In this clause a provincial or local division is consequently being granted jurisdiction as regards the joinder of persons over whom such a court usually has no jurisdiction.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, Sir, hon. members will remember that before the Supreme Court Amendment Act of 1963 was passed, the rules of the various divisions of the Supreme Court contained provisions relating to the summonsing of Judges. The rules of magistrate’s courts contain no corresponding provision. In terms of the rules of the various divisions of the Supreme Court process in the Supreme Court against a Judge could as a rule only be issued if consent to do so had been granted by the division concerned. In the case of the magistrate’s court, the position appears to have been, despite the absence of explicit provisions, that the Supreme Court would first have had to consent to process being issued. As it was deemed undesirable for Judges, who make the rules themselves, to protect themselves, section 4 of the Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1963 was placed on the Statute Book in order to prevent vexatious persons from abusing the process of the court.

However, the amendment which was effected now appears to have the effect that an inferior court has been empowered to decide whether consent should, or should not, be granted for issuing process out of that court, against the Chief Justice, a Judge of appeal or any other Judge. In order to restore the position to what it appears to have been, it is now being provided in this clause that, in the case of an inferior court, the provincial or local division which has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal in a civil action from such inferior court, may consent to the issuing of process in said connection. However, to obviate problems in connection with the absence of the Judge concerned in a case where consent is granted for the issuing of process against him, it is in addition being provided that the date on which the Judge must attend court, shall be determined in consultation with the Chief Justice or Judge President, as the case may be.

Clause 4 of the Bill is self-explanatory. The amendment arises out of a case in which goods to the value of R1,500 were alienated contrary to an attachment. The magistrate who heard the case was of the opinion that the nature of the offence was such that it defeated the administration of justice, and if such offences could be committed with little fear of punishment, it meant that a creditor had no guarantee that he could protect his interests by resorting to the law. The Judges before whom the case later came up for revision, concurred in this and in the opinion of the magistrate that the maximum penalty was not severe enough to serve as an adequate deterrent. That is the reason for the amendment contained in this clause.

With that, Sir, I think I have elucidated the most important principles contained in this Bill.

This Bill is somewhat different from the other one which the hon. the Minister introduced in that it is not a Bill to which we have no objection. We support it, save one clause, i.e. clause 1, where it would seem prima facie from looking at the wording of the clause, that in appointing Judges for South-West Africa the hon. the Minister need no longer consult the Administrator of South-West Africa. Now, we have had the opportunity of reading the debate which took place in the Other Place with regard to the matter. Again prima facie the hon. the Minister appeared to have put up an argument which met the argument raised against this particular provision. But the Second Reading is not the stage during which to have a debate of this sort; so we will leave it to tile Committee Stage to argue whether this Minister’s argument was a good one or not. But at this stage we wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1967 I introduced a Bill which was similar to the Bill before the House now, and which appears on the Statute Book as the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1967 (Act No. 78 of 1967). In terms of that Act, more than 600 pre-Union Acts ordinances and other measures which had the force of law were repealed because they had become obsolete. In terms of the Bill before the House now, a further almost 89 such laws are being repealed.

Some hon. members will recall that I pointed out in the Second Reading of the 1967 Bill that there were nearly 1,200 Acts, ordinances and other measures which had the force of law and which had been passed before Union, and that the Government had decided—

1. (a) that laws which had become obsolete in the meantime, were to be repealed;
2. (b) that those which were still of use and could be incorporated suitably in existing legislation, were to be so incorporated; and
3. (c) that the rest were to be adapted to present requirements and re-enacted.

Apart from the large number of pre-Union laws which were repealed by the single Act in 1967 and the large number the repeal of which is now being proposed in terms of this Bill, pre-Union legislation also receives attention in the normal process of legislation. Thus a further 32 pre-Union laws, in addition to particular sections in pre-Union laws, were repealed or re-enacted by Act of Parliament or ordinance during the past two years, and the process of revision with a view to repeal or re-enactment is still continuing.

If we look at the list of laws in the Schedule, we find annexation laws and laws relating to conventions and treaties in the various Provinces which reflect political developments in our national past. In addition, there are several laws which relate to the former legislative authorities in Natal and the Transvaal. Although these various measures may still be of historical interest, they have become obsolete as a result of political developments.

If one pages through the different laws, one finds that several provisions thereof are reflected in later Acts of the Union or the Republic. Thus, for example, the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1857 (Natal), Act No. 27 of 1895 (Natal) and Act No. 3 of 1907 (Transvaal) are reflected in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963 (Act No. 91 of 1963). The matters provided for in Act No. 6 of 1898 (Natal) and Act No. 13 of 1899 (Natal) are regulated by the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No. 91 of 1964). The prohibition of the unauthorized use of certain arms and badges for the purposes of trade, business, profession or industry which is provided for in Act 45 of 1906 (Natal) is regulated, inter alia, by the Merchandise Marks Act of 1941 (Act No. 17 of 1941). Services which are not regarded as offices of profit under the State, to which Act 1 of 1907 (Transvaal) relates, are at present regulated by section 55 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. The matter to which Act No. 6 of 1907 (Transvaal) relates is at present regulated by the Private Bill Procedure Act, 1912 (Act No. 20 of 1912).

As far as the repeal of various annexation laws is concerned, this does not affect the Republic’s right to its territory, as this aspect was formerly regulated by section 6 of the South Africa Act, 1909, and is now regulated by section 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

As far as the provisions of the specific clauses of the Bill are concerned, clause 2 corresponds, where applicable, with section 2 of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1967.

Hon. members may wonder, Sir, why the legal provisions mentioned in clause 1 are repealed by that clause, instead of having been included in the Schedule to the Bill. The reason for this is that the Act mentioned in clause 1 is the only one which is being repealed only in part, while the effect of the repeal of the various laws mentioned in the Schedule is that those laws will disappear in their entirety. Consequently this Bill does not contain an extra column, as does the 1967 Act, to indicate the extent to which the Act concerned is being repealed. It has therefore been done in this way by the law advisers solely from a drafting point of view.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to emphasize what I said in the Second Reading of the 1967 Bill. As in the case of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Bill, 1967, legal provisions in respect of which the provincial administrations possess legislative powers are also being repealed in this Bill. As I did then, I want to place it beyond all doubt that the repeal of the relevant laws by Parliament does not limit or affect the legislative power of the provincial administrations in any way. The provisions concerned, which are being repealed with the agreement of the administrations, are being repealed by Act of Parliament purely because it is expedient to do so. As I did at the time, I also want to emphasize that every department or administration which is concerned in legal provisions which are being repealed by this Bill, itself accepts responsibility for the repeal of the provisions concerned, and that my Department, although it did consult with the State Departments concerned, is only serving as the channel through which the obsolete provisions are being repealed.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has the support of this side of the House because, as the hon. the Minister has said, measures are dealt with in the Schedule that no longer have application in South Africa. And yet, if one has read some of these old laws, one approaches a measure of this kind with a certain tinge of regret, because, as the hon. the Minister said, these old laws reflect the history of this country. They reflect the history of the great occasions such as the annexation and the re-establishment of the Transvaal Republic in the latter decades of the last century, and the annexation of the territory of Chief Faku in the southern part of Natal, which is dealt with in the Schedule relating to Natal. The latter annexation took place in 1865 and makes one wonder whether we are wise always to refer to restoring to the Native peoples those areas which are historically theirs. Not only the great occasions are reflected in these old laws, but also the more intimate occasions, the social lives of the people and the management of their embryo parliaments. I had a look at one or two of the laws relating to the then colony of Natal which are now to be repealed. It is interesting to see that members were awarded a daily travelling allowance of 15s., which was later raised to £1 per day. This is something which, I think, would not be unwelcome to many of us at the present time. That was almost a 100 years ago. It is also interesting to see that in those days, in the closing stages of the last century, executive officers of the Government in Natal received a salary of £4,000 per year, which once again makes one realize that Members of Parliament to-day are not overpaid. There was also a law in Natal, which is one of the laws which is being repealed, which dealt in quite fine detail with precisely what amenities in the grounds of Government House, namely its buildings, stables and so forth, were to be used by the then Governor of Natal. This suggested that perhaps there had been a Governor who had a tendency in those times to use a little more than he was entitled to use. There were also detailed regulations as to the circumstances in which the governor or the acting governor would be entitled to only half his salary instead of the whole of it. Then I think one has perhaps one of the most interesting laws of all which are being repealed. That is something which comes from the Transvaal. It is a resolution of the Volksraad on the 1st September 1898, which stated that no trams were to be driven by mechanical power. As I said, these are interesting reflections of the history of this country, not only the great occasions, but the more simple occasions and even the personal details of those who were running parts of South Africa at that time. It is very interesting to read through some of these. As I said, one has a twinge of regret that this which mirrors the early history, social and otherwise, of this country, is now disappearing from the Statute Book. Nevertheless, we appreciate the necessity for it and will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of this my first speech in this House, I deem it a special privilege and honour to be able to express a word of thanks and appreciation towards my predecessor. Mr. Van den Heever, now the Hon. Senator Van den Heever, was the member for Pretoria (Central) for a period of 22 years. In this House he was the chairman of various working groups in the National Party. He was a member and the chairman of various Select Committees. He attained the post of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees in this House. Mr. Van den Heever, who worked hard in this House and who was always a credit to his constituency, is no longer a member of this House, but is now a member of the Other Place. I should like to use this opportunity to wish him and his wife many years of good health and fruitful labour in the service of our people and our fatherland.

I should like to say that it is a privilege for me to be a member of this House. I am grateful for the friendly manner in which I was received here by the senior members of this House, by members on both sides of the House.

I should like to refer to the Bill which we are dealing with now. If one reads through the laws which are now being repealed, the history of South Africa passes before one’s mind’s eye and one appreciates the weal and the woe and the conflicts of the past, as well as the way of life of our forefathers. But one also notices how things have changed over the years and how certain important fundamental changes have taken place.

I should just like to refer to a few laws. Act. No. 9 of 1869 of the Cape of Good Hope, which is now being repealed, was an Act “for the better protection of bees”. Hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Newton Park, will notice that bee-lovers need not be concerned about this at all. An interesting principle is contained in this Act. In terms of this Act it is an offence to destroy bees on another man’s land. But an interesting principle is contained in it, namely that if the State institutes a prosecution and the offender is convicted, the offender must bear the costs of the prosecution. To-day such costs are borne by the State itself.

Then there are a few more interesting Acts. There is Act No. 12 of 1907, “the Payment of Members of Parliament Act”, which we are now repealing here. In terms of this Act, a Member of Parliament earned a salary of £300 in the Transvaal in 1907. But this Act contains another interesting provision which fortunately no longer appears on the Statute Book today; i.e. that this salary shall be paid only once a year, on the last day of the session. It is said that the debates were very brief and to the point in those days. The speakers spoke very concisely and nobody ever wasted any time.

Act No. 24 of 1907, the “Officers of Parliament Remuneration Act”, is also being repealed. In terms of this Act, the Speaker earned a salary of £2,500 at the time, which would of course have been a tremendously large salary by present-day standards, probably a salary in the region of R30,000

Mr. Speaker, because in terms of the rules I am, of course, not allowed to criticize existing legislation, I take it that I shall not be allowed to argue that the Speaker should be remunerated on the same basis to-day.

But in connection with this Act there are a few interesting political arrangements of that time which are also being repealed. The hon. the Minister also referred to this. Among others, there is the Volksraad resolution of 18th March, 1852, in the Transvaal in respect of the ratification of Sand River Convention. If we were to examine this convention now, we would see that it stipulates that the British Governor, on behalf of the British Government, entered into an agreement to the effect that the area north of the Vaal River would obtain its independence and that this would be guaranteed by the British Government. Since that time the Transvaal was regarded as being independent as far as the British Government was concerned.

In addition to the Sand River Convention of 1852, we are repealing a proclamation of 1877 relating to the annexation of the South African Republic. This proclamation was issued by Sir Theophilus Shepstone. From the point of view of the Boers it was a very unpopular proclamation at the time. Because they could not pronounce the name “Theophilus Shepstone”, they simply referred to him as “die duiwel se slypsteen”. The proclamation reads as follows—

This proclamation and the Sand River Convention of 1852 were in direct conflict. But there was a further development in this history. We are to-day repealing a proclamation of 1880, which reads as follows—

Sir, then the government was in the hands of the Boers again. This measure was subsequently ratified by the London Convention, which we are also repealing on this occasion to-day. The final chapter in this history was, of course, in 1900, when Lord Roberts annexed the Transvaal territory. He was called “Roberts of Kandahar”. As Reitz said, “Roberts van Kandahar is nie Roberts van Kanhier”.

If we look at this history, we see in our mind’s eye, a conflict between the Afrikaans-speaking population of that time and the English-speaking world as represented here in South Africa. Our English-speaking South African citizens of to-day are descendants of the people who were in South Africa then. This history is important. It is part of our history and we should know it. When we look at these things, we see that there was a conflict between the two poles, Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people. It is a good thing that we should repeal these old laws, because the symbolic significance is that the conflict which existed from 1852 and before until 1900 and thereafter, no longer exists to-day. To-day I, as an Afrikaner and an Afrikaans-speaking South African and citizen of this country, do not draw my inspiration from the conflict of the past, but from my faith in the future of South Africa. I believe that all of us in this House are agreed to-day that greater unity is developing between Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people. This unity, to say the least, is contained in our harmonious relations and faith in the future of the Republic of South Africa and in our united love for South Africa.

I wish to conclude by saying that we in this House are to-day undoing what was brought into being by Volksrade and Parliaments of the past. What the members of those assemblies regarded as milestones are being broken down by this House to-day. It is my desire that while I am a member of this House of Assembly, it will also erect milestones, and that these milestones will prove to be monuments on the road of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time it is my privilege to congratulate and judge an hon. member on his maiden speech. The way in which the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) presented his case, his easy manner of speaking and his clear view of things made it quite plain to us what his profession is, namely that of an advocate. As an advocate and a Member of Parliament. I should very much like to welcome the hon. member here and to congratulate him very much on his first speech. The hon. member was right in saying that we are breaking down milestones and beacons of the past. We are depriving them of their force of law because they have become obsolete over the years, but I think the hon. member expressed the feelings of one and all when he said he does not draw his inspiration from the past and its conflicts, but from future co-operation. This is a very line thought, and I sincerely congratulate the hon. member on the excellent way in which he expressed it. I am sure that he will be a very great force as part of our legal group.

In addition, I want to thank the hon. member for Zululand for the number of interesting cases which he mentioned. In fact, I had the one in connection with electricity in my notes, but I decided not to make use of it and to afford the hon. member the opportunity of doing so. However, it will interest the hon. member to know that in 1902 recognition was accorded to the use of electricity by the municipality of Johannesburg. This was done as early as that. I also want to thank the hon. the Opposition for their support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was reacting to the objections raised by the hon. member for Newton Park in connection with the subdivision of land. His objection was that the rights of the owner or the farmer were being interfered with. It seems to me as if the United Party is still following the old policy: Allow matters to develop and let us see what happens. Sir, we are living in a rapidly changing world, and as regards the subdivision of land it is time that South Africa also took measures to put a stop to the creation of uneconomic units. We must now start thinking along the lines that when a person buys land he does not become the owner of that land to the extent that he is entitled to destroy that land. We must regard the purchase price of the land as the amount paid by the purchaser for the use of that land, but the State should always have the right to say how that land must be used. Just as we already have the position in the case of soil conservation that the State may intervene to see to it that the surface is not damaged, we should also intervene in respect of the subdivision of land, because the fragmentation of land causes more soil erosion and destruction of the surface than do other causes in respect of which intervention is already taking place. This must be done in order to prevent the surface from being damaged. Sir, just consider how, in the case of game preservation for example, the rights of the individual are being interfered with. There are strict laws which provide that if one shoots game without the necessary authority, severe penalties may be imposed. There is even legislation to protect birds. However, if one considers that the soil, which has to feed those animals and above all has to feed man, can be destroyed as a result of fragmentation, it amazes me that the hon. member for Newton Park can still say that we are interfering with the rights of those people.

There was a committee which took evidence from all the parties concerned, including the South African Agricultural Union. Legislation was contemplated at the time which was much more strict than the Bill now before the House, but nevertheless the South African Agricultural Union expressed its approval of it. The Opposition so often says that the Agricultural Union and the farmers do not want it. Only recently I spoke to people who are closely connected with the Agricultural Union, and they said that this Bill has actually been somewhat watered down, and that it should be stricter.

Sir, we must get to the root of the evil as far as the subdivision of land is concerned. There are too many people who want to make money out of the subdivision of land. They do not care what happens to the soil and whether South Africa will still be able to feed its population in the future, as long as they can just make a great deal of money immediately as a result of the fragmentation of land. Around some of our big cities small pieces of land are being sold so that people can go and live there. Such people want to be close to the city. Then again there are persons who divide farms in the Lowveld into small pieces so that the city dweller may have a little place where he can spend his holidays and so that he can say that he has a farm in the Bushveld where he can go and shoot a few buck. But he can do nothing more on that land. When that land is eventually sold to another person who wants to make a living on it, he cannot do so. It is this fragmentation of land which really has to be checked.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that this legislation would even interfere with wills. I am not a lawyer. There are other hon. members who will speak about this aspect, but as a farmer I may say that if I have a farm which I want to divide I must know beforehand whether I may divide that farm into two or three parts for my children. Before drawing up a will I shall find out whether such a farm may be divided into two or three parts. I shall then draw up my will on the basis of the information I have obtained.

In other countries where steps are taken to prevent this fragmentation and where large sums of money have to be spent on converting pieces of land into economic units again, we find that governments have even gone so far as refusing people who own land the right to sell that land at prices they can get for it. The price of such land is fixed by the State. If a person wants to sell that land he may not ask more for it than the price that is laid down by the State. Here one can still sell one’s land at any price one can get for it. The State, therefore, does not interfere to such an extent. However, if we allow this fragmentation to continue we shall eventually be driven to that point. In other countries we find that when a person puts land out on lease without himself farming on it, the lessee automatically has the first option to buy that land if the owner wants to sell it. Even if some other person wants to pay the owner more for it, he may not pay more than the price laid down by the State. The lessee of the land has the first option to buy. The owner of the land may not sell it to any person. If the lessee is prepared to buy the land at the price laid down by the State, he receives priority. This shows us that those countries have realized that even the lessees of land must be protected. If such a lessee knows that he has the first option to buy he will, as the lessee, look after that land. He will preserve the soil. In this country the lessors try to get as much rent as possible. They do not care what happens to the soil.

The sooner South Africa places this legislation on the Statute Book, the better it will be for posterity. Posterity will be grateful to us for that. The sooner this legislation is passed, the less it will cost posterity to convert these uneconomic units that have been created, into economic units again. The State is trying, by means of its legislation in connection with land tenure, to create more economic units, but it is costing the State a great deal of money. For every economic unit that is created, 500 uneconomic units are created by this fragmentation of land. I simply cannot understand how the Opposition cannot have enough common sense to see that that is not right. If the Opposition oppose this Bill I cannot but come to the conclusion that they are lacking in commonsense. The Opposition said they supported the principle. I only hope that they will support this measure and that they will try to rectify those provisions that are not to their liking.

Mr. Speaker, we have legislation before us which is far too drastic and of a far too serious nature to try to derive political advantage from it. I am not going to try in any way to do so. I would rather deal with the legislation as it is contained in the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already intimated that this is drastic legislation. It is one of the most drastic pieces of legislation which has ever been before this House. The hon. member for Ladybrand said that he was not a jurist and that he did not therefore know whether it had anything to do with legacies. If the hon. member would only take the trouble to read the side-note to clause 5 of the Bill, he will see that it deals with legacies. It deals with legacies, land tenure, property ownership and the rights of the individual. The hon. member for Ladybrand also said that the legislation which had been submitted previously, was even stricter legislation. I am amazed at that remark. The legislation submitted to ’the Select Committee was not stricter legislation than this. That legislation provided that there should be a statutory board on which the South African Agricultural Union and other interested parties would have representation. The hon. member was chairman of the first Select Committee, as well as of the commission and the subsequent Select Committee that dealt with the matter. Even the long title of the 1965 Bill provided that it would be a measure to provide for the establishment of a board to exercise control over the subdivision and alienation of agricultural land. The Select Committee, too, was sharply divided in this regard as far as that Bill was concerned. Is it really necessary for me to quote from the proceedings of the Select Committee? One of the first aspects dealt with by the Select Committee was a motion by the chairman that in the opinion of the committee legislation for the control of the subdivision and alienation of agricultural land was desirable. And must I inform this House how the members of that committee voted? There were four votes for and four against. The chairman used his deciding vote to obtain a majority for the motion. The voting did not even take place on a party basis. The hon. the Minister of Police, who was a member of that committee at the time, voted with us that it was undesirable. The hon. the Minister is not present at the moment but I call him to witness. This was his considered opinion after considerable evidence on the matter had been heard. That is how the Select Committee voted on that matter. Four members were for and four members against the motion. The four members who voted against it, said that a statutory body which was to be established, should not exercise control in this connection. That was the position after evidence had been called for. I want to go back to the beginning of the story. The hon. the Minister mentioned this in his Second-Reading speech. First of all there was a study group in 1963. And what did that study group say? The study group said in the recommendations of its report which it brought out—

This was followed by the composition of the board which, inter alia, included the Agricultural Union. That was the recommendation of the study group in 1963. In 1964 a Select Committee was then appointed, which was unable to complete its inquiry during that session. The Select Committee was then converted into a commission, which heard a great deal of evidence.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When business was interrupted I was sketching the background to the legislation which was before the Select Committee. I should like to quote from the evidence which was given before the Select Committee. This evidence came from no-one less than a person whom I regard as the most competent in this country to form an opinion on this sort of legislation, at least under the present conditions, as far as farming and agriculture are concerned. This person’s evidence was included in the Select Committee’s report; he did not object to this being done, and that is why it was included. The chairman asked him whether there was anything he wanted to add, and he replied—

He was referring here to the memorandum which had been submitted on behalf of his organization—

It is easy.

He goes on to say—

Who has this to say?

I want to quote further—

What page are you quoting from?

Sir, I shall reveal in a moment who the witness is; I have already told you what his qualifications are. If the hon. member would simply wait a while he could also learn something.

What page is this?

I am quoting from the report of the Select Committee, page 6. He goes on to say—

You have read too far now.

I am quoting further—

Sir, I have been quoting here the evidence given by Mr. Sevenster before the Select Committee, and if someone in this House were to tell me that there is a greater authority who could give better evidence in this regard, I should like to know who that is. This is the evidence given by Mr. Sevenster.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is 200 morgen of land at Middelburg, without irrigation, an economic unit?

Sir, I shall come in a moment to the question of land at Middelburg, for the hon. the Minister mentioned this in his Second-Reading speech, and I should like to put certain questions to him, as well as to the Minister of Lands.

I am simply asking whether 200 morgen of grazing land in Middelburg, without any irrigation, is an economic unit.

I shall reply to the question, but the Minister is now trying to force me to say now what I should prefer to say later on. [Interjections.] No, Sir, it is not a joke. What did the hon. file Deputy Minister say in the Second-Reading debate about farms in Middelburg?

It is a simple question.

He said—

Sir, I want to confirm that, but then I want to say this to him and to the hon. the Minister who keeps on annoying me with interjections: In 1954-’55 1,500 morgen in Middelbrug was a very good economic unit, for the simple reason that the marketing of the product which we produced there and the price of the product was of such a nature that if the farmer could keep 1,500 sheep, he could make a good subsistence.

I said 200 morgen, not 1,500 morgen.

To-day there is no such thing as an economic unit of 3,000 morgen in Middelburg. Why? For a host of reasons. The natural conditions have become unfavourable; the wool prices have dropped. Sir, I should also like to put a question to the hon. the Minister and he need not reply to it now. He can do so at a later stage. If an economic unit in the Karoo, in the Middelburg district, had had to be determined in 1954, what would his and his advisers’ reply have been?

1954 is not relevant at all now.

The point is that you said that one is quite unable to determine it. I am now asking you whether 200 morgen is an economic unit.

Sir, I shall resume my seat if the hon. the Minister wants to ask me a question in a courteous way. It is not necessary for him to remain seated in his bench and put questions to me. I shall in due course reply to all these questions. My argument is that the Deputy Minister himself in his Second-Reading speech said—

He goes on to say—

Listen carefully now, Sir, this is what the Deputy Minister said—

Sir, I repeat the question. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second-Reading speech mentioned so many things which must form the norms for an economic unit, we would still have listened, subject to two factors. Make no error, his entire argument concerned economic units and not the subdivision of agricultural land, because in the subdivision of agricultural land an economic unit forms the norm. We would still have listened and we would still have participated in the discussion, if it had been subject to two factors. The first is that the Minister should not personally decide on everything, but that it should be on the basis on which it was in the past, i.e. that a committee or a board with statutory powers should be appointed, and secondly, if the Minister could tell me what he wanted to use as a norm for an economic unit. I have now taken the case of the sheep farmer. The position of the sheep farmer 15 years ago, when it was a paying proposition, was surely completely different to what it is to-day, and it was at that stage that this legislation should have been introduced. Or reversely, if the legislation were passed to-day and it were decided that in the Great Karoo 3,000 morgen is not the norm, because it has nothing to do with the matter, but that the possibility of grazing 1,500 sheep there without risk is the requirement for an economic unit, then I want to ask the Minister who he is to tell me that in ten years’ time 750 sheep will not be the norm? Who in this House is able to do so?

I am. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am glad you are calling them to order, Sir, because the position is a serious one. When we are dealing with property ownership of our mother earth, of the soil from which we make a living and from which future generations must be able to make their living, then it is a good thing if we can discuss this together. But then the Minister must say that this land is divided into geographic, climatic and sociological areas. We have already done this, and we have norms by which to determine what an economic unit is and what an economic subsistence for an agriculturist is. When he arrives at that point, he can discuss this matter with this House, but this legislation cannot even get off the ground. What is provided in this legislation? That the hon. the Minister must determine how agricultural land should be divided up, and he bases it on the argument of what an economic unit is. His entire Second Reading speech was concerned with that. What else do we want to do hut to determine what an economic unit is? Or do we merely want to prevent agricultural land from being divided up into pieces which are too small? After all, that is not what we want to do. We want to determine on what a farmer can make a decent living and I have already said that the size of the land has nothing to do with it. Sir, we can cross our borders and see what is being done in the north. There it is provided, regardless of the nature of the land, that if a farmer is not farming with 750 cattle, it is not economic. Surely we have a norm there. They say that if a person as a cattle fanner, is not farming with 750 head of cattle, it is an uneconomic unit.

It depends on the area where you are farming.

Sir, it has nothing to do with the area. If you can maintain 750 head of cattle on 4,000 acres at Gwelo, you are welcome to do so. If you want to maintain them in Matabeleland and you have 15,000 acres necessary to do so, you are also welcome to do that. There is no such thing that you cannot in Matabeleland obtain transfer for a unit of less than 15,000 acres. That is the norm which is laid down there, and they say that they regard that as an economic unit. If you are farming on that basis and your chances of making the grade are good, you will receive state assistance, but if you cannot farm on that basis, you cannot obtain transfer of the land and neither will you obtain state assistance.

Sir, if we had gone as far as that in this legislation, we could have considered it. The hon. member for Ladybrand said a moment ago that the Bill did not go far enough, that the Bill has nothing on which to stand; it has no foundations beneath it, and it has no legs to stand on, because there is no norm to determine what an economic unit is. The Minister talks about land in Middelburg, and then he talks about the size of the land, but what has the size of the land to do with it? If a man can keep 1,500 sheep on 750 morgen in a high rainfall region, it is an economic unit, but if he cannot keep 1,500 sheep on 4,000 morgen then that is not necessarily an economic unit. It is not for me to determine an economic unit, and even less is it for me to say what an occupier of land must earn to give his family an education and enable them to make a decent living.

Two of these commission reports were bristling with arguments of what a decent living was for a man on a farm. Even in that respect it is the most difficult thing in the world to determine what a decent living is, because the one man lives parsimonously, and the other does not. The one man is a good and efficient farmer, and the other not. The laws of economy will eliminate those who farm uneconomically. There are methods where by this is done. I have already told the Minister that if he had come forward here with something constructive, and if he had been able to tell us what the norm was according to which he wanted to determine uneconomic units and how he wanted to do so, we could looked at the legislation; but it is of no avail saying that in principle we are in favour of there being some system or other by means of which we can prevent the land from being destroyed. But then there must be something constructive, to take the place of such a half-baked measure as this.

I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister came forward with this legislation. I am speaking under correction, but I do not think the S.A. Agricultural Union was afforded an opportunity of considering this legislation. [Interjection.] He is saying they did, but the day before yesterday I received other information from senior officials to the effect that it was not done. But I want to accept the Minister’s word that the S.A. Agricultural Union accepts it in this way, and that it enjoys their support. But then I still want to put the very opposite question: Would it have done us so much harm if we had kept this legislation in abeyance for another year or two or three, and until we had divided up the land, as I said, into a thousand regions in each of which similar conditions prevailed, so that one could determine what the climatic conditions, etc., were? Would it have done so much harm if we had gone to work on the basis of the legislation which was originally before the House, i.e. that there should be a statutory body to determine these matters and that there should be an advisory committee in each area which is conversant with the circumstances of the farmers there? How on earth can you make a system like this work if you do not have the assistance of advisory committees, who are conversant with circumstances in that area and who can say whether one is dealing with a good farmer or not, and whether it is an economic unit or not, because both these aspects have a bearing on the matter? I do not even want to go into the other aspects such as the succession and the problems going hand in hand with that, such as subdivision and undivided shares. We can subsequently, in the Committee Stage, argue these matters with the Minister, all of which appear in the Bill. I am talking now about the principles and the policy. The hon. the Minister and hon. members on the Government side cannot expect the United Party to support this legislation at this stage. The legislation is half-baked and impractical.

If it is not baked, why do you not lift the lid?

This Bill is as half-baked as many of that hon. Minister’s plans.

If this Bill were to be forced through by way of a vote, we on this side of the House will be entitled to go to the farmers and say to them that they were not given a chance. We will be able to say to them that this legislation was forced through by means of a vote. We will find it very useful before the next election. We on this side of the House can do nothing but give our support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park. That amendment summarises everything I have now said. It is being proposed here that it is the sole right of the Minister to determine what an economic and what an uneconomic area is and how it should be determined. In terms of this legislation he will also be able to appropriate land. As far as we are concerned, this legislation is taking the matter too far, and we cannot therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for East London (City).

You did not. You interrupted me.

No, I listened. I also put a question to the hon. member to which he has not yet given me a reply. He objected to the introduction of legislation which would counteract the subdivision of land. I want to concede to the hon. member that it is not so easy to determine what an economic unit is. But because it is difficult to determine what an economic unit is, surely we cannot merely leave the matter as it is and do nothing about it. Do hon. members on that side of the House want us to do nothing about the matter? I asked the hon. member whether 200 morgen of grazing land in Middelburg, Cape, is an economic unit. He said that it was not an economic unit. He deems himself capable of determining whether or not 200 morgen of grazing land in Middelburg, Cape, is an economic unit. Even he has the ability to determine that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If it were 2,000 morgen of land, would that have been economic or uneconomic?

The hon. member must just give me a chance. I shall come to that in the course of my speech. I do not intend evading that question. The subdivision of land is taking place on a large scale in South Africa. And even the hon. member for East London (City) is capable enough to say that it is uneconomic. But now they want one to do nothing about the subdivision of land because it cannot be determined whether 2,000 morgen of land is, under all circumstances, economic or uneconomic. That was the standpoint of the hon. member for East London (City). It is also the standpoint of the United Party. This is not the first legislation which is being made applicable in South Africa where the Minister has certain powers at his disposal as regards the utilisation of land. Where the Physical Planning Act is in force, it already applies that consent must toe granted for the subdivision of land. The simple reason for that is that we do not want to convert the whole of South Africa into an industrial complex.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister asking a question?

The hon. the Minister may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, in this House further legislation in regard to the legislation on agricultural credit and land tenure was passed on which both sides of the House agreed. This legislation provided that persons who owned uneconomic units, and who wanted to purchase land to make those units economic, would toe assisted with a 5 per cent subsidized rate of interest. Hon. members on that side of the (House voted for that. How is it determined in such cases whether it is an economic unit? If the hon. member for East London (City) made representations to the Department of Agricultural Credit on behalf of a person whose unit was not economic, how did he know that that person’s unit was uneconomic? Millions of rands are being spent annually to enable the farmer who has an uneconomic unit to acquire a larger or a more economic unit.

He determines his own norm.

No, it is not his own norm which is valid. His subsidization takes place according to a norm which is determined by the Department. Public money to the value of millions of rand is being spent to enable such farmers to acquire economic units. The hon. member for East London (City) agreed to that, whether he can now define an economic unit or not. On the one hand we are spending millions of rand to make units economic, and on the other we are turning the tap open as wide as possible in order to create uneconomic units. If we were to allow that, what would (become of us in South Africa? If this House accepts in principle that it is in the interests of agriculture in South Africa that it should be made possible for a farmer who owns an uneconomic unit to acquire an economic unit by means of State assistance, then the factors which create the uneconomic unit should also be eliminated. If this is not done, we would be pouring money into a bottomless pit. When it comes to agricultural credit it is determined by a council and officials when a unit is economic or uneconomic. These same people will also act as advisors in regard to this legislation. I do not want to say that they are always precisely correct. But I do want to say that they will not regard a unit of 200 morgen in the Middelburg district as being economic. We have many cases in the Transvaal, and particularly in the constituency which I previously represented, where 4,000 morgen of land was subdivided to such an extent that afterwards there were 970 owners. With this legislation it will no longer be possible for such conditions to exist. Those are the conditions we want to counteract-Those are also the conditions that hon. member himself wants to counteract. The fact that he voted for the previous legislation in this connection, proves that he wants to counteract it. We had cases where we had to consolidate land which had been distributed in earlier days among the settlements, and on which people could not make a living. Twenty-four plot units were consolidated with 24 other plot units. Over and above the deists which those people had and which had to toe subsidized by the State, it cost the State a direct subsidy of R1½ million to consolidate those 24 units. Surely we cannot go on like this in South Africa. We cannot allow the subdivision of land to continue with the State having to make contributions every time in order to remedy those situations. That is why we must take steps to prevent it. I will readily concede to the member that it is not so easy to determine whether a unit is economic for 1,000 or 1,500 sheep. This legislation which is under discussion now, does not consolidate units. Nor does it prohibit people from continuing to farm on units, although those units may be uneconomic All that this legislation prohibits, is the further subdivision of that unit by such farmer. I can tell that hon. member that if a unit of 1,000 morgen is economic, it will no longer be economic if it is divided in half. My common sense tells me that. That hon. member will agree with me. But where we find cases where larger units have to be subdivided, we will have to be guided by our sound common sense. Our sound common sense will have to determine whether it is a borderline case. If it is a borderline case, it would be foolish of any Minister or any controlling body to say that the unit in question should fall into a certain category because it is a borderline case. The benefit of the doubt will always be given to the seller. There are so many obvious cases in South Africa. Just think of the Pretoria area and Warmbaths. There we have cases where 4,000 or 5,000 morgen of land is subdivided into 50 morgen units or 25.1 morgen units. The units then lie unproductive. The hundreds of people who derive comfort from being told that in so many years’ time they will be able to make a living on it, become poor and eventually end up at the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This Department is then asked for a loan so that they can make a living on 25.1 morgen. That is the position which exists in South Africa. That is the type of case we want to deal with. There are cases of unscrupulous people in South Africa who buy up nice land along the rivers, divide it up into small stands, and tell the town dwellers that they can make a good living there with citrus, bananas or what have you. But we who know about agriculture, know in what straits those people sometimes find themselves. I can mention to you numerous cases of people who worked in the public service and used their pension money for that type of business. They were exploited by unscrupulous people. To-day they find themselves in desperate straits because their pension is not even enough to keep them alive after their debts have been paid off.

Would it not be better if a committee went into that matter?

But, Mr. Speaker, a committee or a council or a department which is made up in the same way as a committee … After all, the Minister is not going to deal with every case on his own. Who advises the Minister of Planning where the Physical Planning Act is applicable? It is done by the department concerned. Decisions to the one side or the other are not taken out of the blue. The matter is first investigated and analysed. If there is a good reason for a specific property to be subdivided into a vacation resort, or something of that kind, we will not take such unfair action as to prohibit it entirely. But because you may not do things like that, you must, according to the hon. member for East London (City), preferably do nothing. You must just leave the matter as it is. The State has to spend millions in order to consolidate, but you may not take any steps to remedy the things you want to remedy. We have had various commissions of inquiry into this matter. There was the commission on the depopulation of the rural areas, of which hon. members are aware. All these commissions recommended that the subdivision of farming land in South Africa should be controlled. If the agricultural commission which has now been appointed should recommend that this be done, will the hon. member then say that it is the correct thing, or will the hon. member still continue to say that it is wrong? Hon. members referred to the South African Agricultural Union. We wanted to introduce this legislation in Parliament last year. We did not have time to do so because the session was too short. Deputations from the South African Agricultural Union came to see us at our office on no fewer than five occasions to request that the legislation should be piloted through Parliament immediately. This happened repeatedly. This legislation was discussed with the South African Agricultural Union. It was submitted to them and they know precisely what is contained therein. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House are giving themselves out as the representatives of the farmers of South Africa here in this House. But they should take a little more interest in South African agriculture. All day long they quote from speeches made by the chairman and director of the Agricultural Union. With the exception of the hon. member for East London (City), whom I have seen at certain congresses now and again when they wanted to mete out a little praise to him for what he had done in the past, there are very few of the hon. members whom I have ever seen there.

When were you there last except …

That hon. member can have nothing whatsoever to say. He has never been there. I must say that if hon. members on the opposite side quote the standpoints of the Agricultural Union here, they must see to it that they have knowledge of the standpoints of the Agricultural Union. Then they would be able to do so with far better results.

The attitude of the United Party is one of defeatism. They say that if one cannot do something absolutely correctly, one should rather do nothing. If one were therefore to Judge the United Party according to that, they have no right to exist, because they have never yet done anything correctly, to say nothing of doing anything absolutely correctly.

After all. the Deputy is good enough to deal with the legislation.

He can deal with it. Why not?

The Minister is prejudicing the Deputy’s case.

Everyone will admit, and I will readily concede this too, that there will be many borderline cases where it will be difficult to determine whether the land can be subdivided or not. There will be cases where people will want to allege that the decision can go the wrong way. There will be such errors, but they will be few. In spite of that it is still worthwhile to ensure that protection is afforded in the large majority of cases. In this way it will be possible to prevent the best agricultural land in South Africa being cut up by fidei commissary wills and by unscrupulous exploiters.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed surprized that the hon. the Minister has come into the debate at this stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this measure and we thought the debate would proceed a considerable distance before we had a Ministerial reply. I believe the hon. the Minister has come into this debate because he was so concerned by the very sound arguments used by the hon. member for East London (City) that he thought it better to come into the debate to try to rescue the situation. I cannot say that I am very impressed with the rescue operation which the hon. the Minister launched. I am a little concerned too that the hon. the Minister saw fit to allege that we on this side had very little contact with agriculture and organized agriculture in general. He even suggested that the only time the hon. member for East London (City) ever appears at an agricultural congress is when members of that congress want to thank him for something that he has done in the past.

That was an unworthy remark.

I do not think that that is a fair remark because the hon. member takes a keen interest in the affairs of agriculture in South Africa. I would say that he is one of the most dedicated agriculturists we have in South Africa. I myself am keenly interested in agricultural matters. I am fully qualified in these matters having been a member of most agricultural unions for very many years. I take a keen interest in what in fact takes place at these congresses.

The arguments that we are raising from this side are that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, at this stage, with the preparatory work that has been done, to try to define an economic unit in the different areas of South Africa. I should like to develop that theme further during the course of my speech. I will also during the course of my speech answer some of the arguments which the hon. the Minister raised. I am one who believes that one of the basic problems of agriculture, particularly in regard to our pastoral industry, is the large number of farms that are too small and as such uneconomical. But having said that, I should like to emphasize very strongly that the size of the property is most certainly not the only criterion. Other matters that have a vital bearing on this matter are the debt a farmer has on that particular property, the managerial skill which that particular farmer is able to bring to bear and the price of his product at that particular time. We have seen tremendous fluctuation in the price of wool. What was an economic unit in the wool producing areas of South Africa 20 years ago, is most certainly not an economic unit to-day. This position can very easily change in the future. Furthermore, Sir, the living standard which a farmer or land owner wants to maintain on a particular farm is also important. In the report of the commission it is stated freely that the standard or the norm should be that of an “ambagsman”. They mentioned a figure of R2,000. One farmer may be quite prepared to live at the same standard as an “ambagsman”. Another may want a very much higher living standard. There is no need to penalize the one who is prepared to live at a lower standard on a smaller unit. Who is the Minister to decide what size of property will suit a particular farmer and his needs? Let us take the case of Oudtshoorn in the days when the ostrich feather boom was at its peak. Properties in that area were a certain size and the farmers’ profits were booming, but the moment the price of feathers dropped, farms which had been economic units during the boom were most certainly no longer economic units.

At a time like this, when the manpower shortage is probably our biggest national problem, is it wise at this stage to place further legislation on the Statute Book which must make further inroads into the already inadequate supplies of administrative personnel? We have just had legislation dealing with the population register. This legislation will demand many extra administrative personnel. A year and a half ago we amended the Soil Conservation Act. That Act is itself not off the ground yet, mainly because we do not have the personnel to get it off the ground. Then there is the stock production scheme which was recently introduced. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is one of the best schemes that we have ever had introduced into farming in South Africa. One of the problems in regard to this scheme is, however, that we do not have enough personnel to get the scheme functioning properly. Now we are introducing legislation which will make even more inroads on the resources of the already overtaxed departments.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech, which he delivered here, was well prepared, but it was a long catalogue of reports by commissions and authorities, pointing out the serious consequences of having farms which are too small. One cannot easily disagree with their opinions, but those opinions highlight the real problem. The real problem is not one of subdivision at this stage. The real problem is how to consolidate what has already been subdivided. On this particular issue the Bill is absolutely silent.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have enough time to answer questions at this stage. It seems logical to me that if the State were to embark on consolidation schemes, which are urgently necessary at this stage, it could well reserve the right, after it has financially assisted a farmer to consolidate his position, to preclude that farmer from once more subdividing that property it has helped him to consolidate. Another very real factor is that the need to consolidate is fully appreciated by the farming community in South Africa to-day. To-day a natural economic process of consolidation is taking place within the farming community itself. The rate at which this process is taking place is only controlled …

Order! Consolidation is not under consideration now.

Sir, may I refer to points indirectly concerned with consolidation? I am trying to explain why I believe that subdivision is not as serious a matter as has been alleged by the hon. the Minister. I would say that there is a desire to consolidate on the part of the farming community. A hundred years ago when education was not easily available to the farmer and when other fields of work could not readily be entered by the agriculturalist, the farmer was virtually forced to keep his sons on the farm. He had very little option. To-day quite the opposite situation prevails. I do not want to mention particular cases in my district too freely, because it is a district which has given the lead in farming matters before in South Africa, but the farmers there are having the greatest difficulty in keeping their sons on the farms. In most cases farmers’ sons have obtained university education and prefer to follow a professional career. The exodus of young people from the land is, I think, assuming quite frightening proportions. This is a matter which the Government will have to consider very seriously.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to speak about the problems of agriculture in general, as they affect the size of a farm?

That is not contained in the Bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the opposite side have up to now advanced the argument that there are reasons for opposing the subdivision of agricultural land. Consequently I think that the hon. member for Walmer is entitled to say that the problem is not so grave as hon. members on that side of the House are trying, to make out.

Yes, I listened attentively to what the hon. member said.

Sir, in our pastoral areas there is an urge to leave the land among people who should be bona fide farmers. Around our big cities, on the other hand, there is an urge on the part of city dwellers who have become rich, to acquire agricultural holdings. They are seeking a place of refuge from the intense activities of city life. This is another problem. I do not think that it is something which should be allowed to go on ad infinitum because it may well lead to the wasteful use of land—and good agricultural land at that. I believe that the legislation which we are considering this evening in this House is not necessary to deal with that problem, because we have on the Statute Book the Physical Planning Act, Which, I believe, is sufficiently wide to take care of that particular problem. It is a problem which the hon. the Minister raised earlier.

My argument is that this Bill had come some 60 or 100 years too late. If I may use an Afrikaans expression “die koeël is al deur die kerk”. I am referring now, of course, more specifically to the pastoral areas of the country. Other speakers on this side will discuss the problems which arise around our big cities. Let me be the last one to condemn any measure this Government wishes to introduce to protect the natural pastures of this country, because believe me, Sir, they need protecting. I am critical because the Government has chosen this time to introduce a measure of this kind, which is going to have such far-reaching implications and which deals only with the fringe of the problem. It will be virtually impossible to carry out the provisions of this Bill because, as my colleague has pointed out, we do not even have the basis to decide what an economic unit is. At this stage it will therefore be completely impracticable to carry out the provisions of this Bill.

I believe that in its approach to this matter, the Government is putting the cart before the horse. That is the problem. What I believe is urgently needed now not only in the best interests of farming in South Africa but also to make the provisions of this Bill practical one day, if they are necessary, is an ecological survey of the whole country. Such a survey will show how the land of South Africa can best be used. I believe that in introducing legislation of this kind we must be more concerned with land usage than the size of the particular farms and particular plots. It is the use to which land is put that is the overriding consideration. I believe that the only way we can establish this fact is by having an ecological survey. I believe that a survey of this kind is long overdue in South Africa. An ecological survey will show, amongst many other things, which are the proper areas in South Africa where should farm wheat, maize or citrus; where we should have cattle, sheep or goats; where forestry should be undertaken; what areas we should proclaim holiday resorts and so on. It will also show where industrial development should take place. It will concern itself with the urban expansion so as to try to avoid our cities expanding over good agricultural land. I mention this particular point because the city I represent in this House, namely Port Elizabeth, is surrounded on the one side by good agricultural land and on the other side by land that is of very little use for agriculture. I believe that if we had a proper ecological survey which will set out how this country should develop in the future, it will show that the City of Port Elizabeth should expand on the side which is not suitable for agricultural purposes and that the area that is now being used for township expansion should be restricted to agricultural use. I realize that this presents certain problems but if we look sufficiently far ahead and the survey we undertake is done sufficiently well, I believe that the Department of Planning is a department which could deal with these particular problems. Then we will not have the problem where farmers with farms adjoining big cities are prepared to sell their agricultural land purely for township development because they get a higher price for building plots than they do when the land is zoned for agricultural purposes.

But do you not agree that the Department of Agriculture is equipped to do that and not the Department of Planning? We are merely transferring this task from the Department of Planning to the Department of Agriculture. That is all.

My argument has been that at this stage the Department of Agriculture, with the information they have at their disposal and the personnel they have at their disposal, are not adequately equipped to put the provisions of this Bill into satisfactory operation in the best interests not only of the country but of the farming population as well. In his speech, the hon. the Deputy Minister made the very point I am making now. In his speech he referred to the Tomlinson Commission which he appointed to investigate this very matter. I must be quite honest and say that in the earlier paragraphs of its report the Tomlinson Commission in fact says that they believe that there is a need for the legislation we have before us. But they go a step further and make what I think is a more important statement which reads as follows—

This is my very point. Until this preparatory work is done which is strongly recommended by the Tomlinson Commission, and until the Department of Agriculture has the information that should be obtained by the Department of Planning by carrying out an ecological survey, as is suggested here, the Department of Agriculture, which that hon. member suggests Will deal with this legislation and its effects, will be in no position to carry out the measures visualized in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition astonishes me. In his introductory speech the hon. member for Newton Park told us that there was no problem. Subsequent to that the hon. member for East London (City) said that there was a problem, but we could not determine an economic unit. And now the hon. member for Walmer said that we were 60 or 100 years too late with this legislation.

It is too late.

He admits it. It does not seem to me as though the hon. Opposition’s agriculture group discussed this legislation, for each of the three Opposition speakers who have spoken up to now, took up a different standpoint.

I should very much like to respond to a few points raised here by the hon. member for Walmer. He said that we did not have sufficient staff for implementing this Bill. But, surely, it is unnecessary at this stage to appoint additional staff for implementing this Bill. The staff are available. Then he also said that the stock reduction scheme was as yet not “off the ground”. He is losing contact with the rural areas. He does not know what is happening there, for the legislation is off the ground already. There are 1,200 fanners who have already been enrolled under the stock reduction scheme. This scheme is in full swing. This hon. member should drive to Graaff-Reinet one day so that he may find out what is happening. He also spoke about the Soil Conservation Act. I just want to point out how incoherently these people talk. The hon. member said that we did not have sufficient staff for implementing this Bill properly. He mentioned the Soil Conservation Act as an example, since it was allegedly not “off the ground” as yet. This really astonishes me. Whenever we have important legislation of this nature, they come forward with all sorts of arguments in order to suggest that we cannot do this or that.

The Soil Conservation Act was passed by this House at the beginning of this year. Allow me to say that the whole farming population of South Africa, as large as it is, has accepted this Act, in spite of all the doubts raised by those hon. members in this regard. I am truly shocked at the fact that when we have to contend with a problem such as this one, those hon. members opposite who are actively concerned in the farming industry, are conjuring up arguments in regard to the determination of uneconomic units, and so forth, and that, on top of that, they are telling us that we cannot go on with this Act as that would allegedly be a matter of impossibility.

What should the size of an economic unit be?

It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. member for Walmer that, for he is farming in Graaff-Reinet and he ought to know.

I may be the future member for Graaff-Reinet.

Mr. Speaker, he says he is the future member for Graaff-Reinet. Why did he not oppose me there during the recent election? At that stage he put up a chap from Richmond to oppose me there, and he himself went to Walmer. The Opposition always adopts a laissezaller attitude. There is a problem. The one says there is not a problem, but the other says there is. They say: Let things slide. Let us take the course of least resistance. I want to warn the hon. Opposition. They have now been sitting on that side of the House for 22 years. They will also be sitting there for the next 22 years if they are not prepared to support in this House legislation of this nature, legislation seeking to save our country and our soil, and if they advance fallacious arguments such as those we had to listen to in this House to-day.

I want to accept that some of them are of the opinion that there is in fact a problem. Their main speaker on agricultural matters is not of this opinion. In his introductory speech he said—

Then he proceeded to analyse the position. Next he spoke about the commission on the depopulation of the rural areas. They had merely selected certain isolated spots and said that there was a problem. Then he went further. He quoted from a speech made by Professor Tomlinson at a certain place. Then he quoted a passage in which it was said that only 18 per cent of the 42,000 farms in the Transvaal had heirs. In consequence of that he said that there was no problem. But then he went further by saying that this Government had been the cause of numerous farmers having to leave their farms.

Yes.

He says it again. But just before that he said that there was no problem. With reference to that he went on to say (translation) —

Is it possible to find a better egg-dance than that argument? If we are to accept that the Opposition are basing their whole argument on the fact that, in the first place, there is no problem and that, in the second place, an economic unit cannot be determined, let us take a look at what certain authorities are saying with reference to this matter and how they feel about it. In the first instance, I want to make use of the report of the Select Committee on the Subdivision of Agricultural Land (S.C.9—’64). I want to read out to hon. members what was said by Dr. Henning. Later on I shall come to Mr. Sevenster, who was quoted so freely here by the hon. member for East London (City). I just want to tell you first, Sir, that at the moment Dr. Henning is chairman of the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Board. I think that if ever there was a man who, by virtue of his mature experience, could speak on this matter, then he was probably that man. Dr. Henning said—

Which page?

Page 2 of the first report. But Dr. Henning went on to say the following on page 7—

Do we still have doubts? This evidence was given in 1964. But I agree with the hon. member for Walmer; we may be a little too late with this legislation, but we may not be quite as late as he thinks. Dr. Henning went on to say (translation) —

Why did the hon. member for East London (City) not quote from Dr. Henning’s evidence as well? Why did he not quote from the evidence given by Dr. P. W. Vorster, our present Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, a person who, as far as these matters are concerned, probably has such maturity of experience as one can wish to have. He said here—

This is what authorities have to say about this matter. But let us see what the agricultural economists have to say. To-night hon. members opposite emerged here as agricultural economists. They conjured up here all sorts of problems in regard to the determination of an uneconomic unit. I just want to quote two examples of what was said by agricultural economists, i.e. Mr. De Swardt, the then Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and Mr. S. P. van Wyk, the Assistant Chief. Mr. De Swart said on page 81—

This is what was said by economists. Who am I, as a layman, to suggest that we cannot implement an Act because it is impossible to determine an economic or uneconomic unit? Who are the hon. the Opposition to suggest this?

We did not say it was impossible; we said, “Lay down the norm.”

Hon. members did not read the amendment. They should read it again.

What amendment?

But, surely, there is only one amendment to this Bill. I am afraid the hon. member must have been under a slight misapprehension. He thought there was another amendment.

Now I want to come to Mr. Sevenster, who was quoted so freely by the hon. member for East London (City). I want to ask this hon. member now whether he will agree, that with all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, Mr. Sevenster was the only person who was opposed to legislation? Does he agree?

All the evidence that was submitted, was in connection with a statutory board.

Sir, I am asking the hon. member for East London (City) a simple question. Is he not capable of understanding the simplicity of the question? I am asking him whether Mr. Sevenster, of all the persons who gave evidence on the implementation of legislation for combating the uneconomic subdivision of land, was the only person who was opposed to it.

With a statutory board added to it, yes.

Nowhere in any quotation of the evidence I read out here, have I referred to a statutory board.

All of it was concerned with a statutory board. You do not know what you are talking about, my friend.

The hon. member does not really want to answer me. Even Mr. Sevenster admitted on pages 3 and 11, if the hon. member wants to read it, that the problem did exist.

We are not saying that the problem does not exist.

The hon. the shadow minister said so. Must I read it out to the hon. member again?

He said the problem would solve itself.

Let me just quote this for the benefit of hon. members. The hon. member for Newton Park said—

In other words, if legislation were passed—

Quite correct.

But, surely, in that case he is admitting that there is no problem. Now the hon. member says that he did not say that. This is exactly what he implied.

I mentioned the problem of the speculators.

I shall go further. Hon. members are wasting my time now. What does the Natal Provincial Administration have to say?

Tell us what you think; do not tell us what others say.

That hon. member astonishes me.

He should write a letter.

Yes, something of that nature. The hon. member wants to know what I say, but surely he knows what I say. After all, here I am defending legislation for which I am partly responsible, along with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

You are telling us what others say.

What did the hon. member for East London (City) do? He devoted a quarter of an hour of his speech to quoting what Mr. Sevenster had said. I want to go further. What does the Natal Provincial Administration say? [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London (North) will have a chance to speak after me, and I wish he would restrain himself. The Natal Provincial Administration says that it is necessary that legislation be introduced for combating this problem. And so I could go on quoting what the Provincial and South African Agricultural Unions have to say. The hon. member for East London (North) asked me the other day what I knew about the agricultural union. I warn to ask the hon. member what he knows about it, for I think what he knows is dangerous. The fact that he does not know what I know about the Agricultural Union, is even more dangerous. Now I am moving a little closer to the hon. member for East London (City), as I want to deal now with the standpoint taken up by the National Woolgrowers’ Association of South Africa. The hon. member is an honorary member of that organization. He made the request to-night that we should keep this matter out of politics. However, when he had the opportunity of discussing this matter on a non-political level, he did not do so; he kept quiet. A draft resolution was, first of all, adopted by the Cape Congress and sent through from there to the Central Congress; did the hon. member never take the trouble to state all his problems at that stage? At that congress the National Woolgrowers’ Association decided in principle that the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land had to be stopped.

I said that they had to bring us a practicable draft Bill so that we might look at it.

The hon. member made the request to-night that we should keep this matter out of politics, but when he was in a position to do so on a non-political level, he did not even take part in the discussion. The hon. member knows how the National Woolgrowers’ Association sets to work. The National Woolgrowers Association accepted the old Act in principle. From there it was sent through to the South African Agricultural Union, and the National Wool-growers’ Association of South Africa was represented at that congress. The Act was subsequently approved. However, to-night the hon. member asked in all earnestness that we should keep this matter out of politics, but when he was in a position to participate, on a non-political level, in a discussion at an open congress, he did not do so.

When are you going to speak on behalf of the Act?

I just want to tell the hon. member that I am not speaking on behalf of the Act, but on behalf of myself. The inter-departmental committee under Professor Tomlinson stated in plain terms that this problem did exist and that action had to be taken swiftly. I could go on in this vein. I agree with the hon. member for Walmer that the Carnegie Commission mentioned this problem as far back as 1932. Do hon. members opposite know what the Marais Commission has to say about this matter?

Do you know?

Yes, of course I know. The interim report of the Marais Commission …

The interim report, yes.

The hon. member astonishes me. If the hon. member thinks that he will put me off by making interjections, then he really is mistaken. He knows he is fighting a lost cause. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the Marais Commission, the Minister announced certain measures in regard to economic and uneconomic units, but I want to go on: Hon. members opposite are saying that this legislation will be a white elephant; that it will not be possible to implement it. Sir, I find it so strange that hon. members opposite are of the opinion that this Government is incapable of implementing this legislation. It stands to reason that it will be implemented. I find it strange that the Opposition is always underestimating the capabilities of this side.

How is it going to be implemented?

What is an economic unit in Steytlerville?

I shall tell that hon. member in a moment what an economic unit is. It is common knowledge that an economic unit can be determined to-day with a fair amount of certainty. I think the hon. the Minister definitely gave him a satisfactory reply as regards economic units.

Tell us what an economic unit is in Steytlerville.

On what basis does Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure determine an economic unit? If the hon. member is going to make representations in regard to financing on behalf of a voter of his, on what information will he base his representations? Sir, I say that it is not impossible to determine an economic unit. The agricultural economists say that it is in fact possible. Dr. De Swardt said so, Mr. S. P. van Wyk said so, and numerous agricultural economists have said so. Dr. Henning said at various places that it was in fact possible.

The hon. member referred to bequests, and I should like to ask him that when he is in a position to do so, he should withdraw the statement he made in his introductory speech.

Why?

Both Mr. De la Harpe De Villiers and iMr. Cilliers deny that they have ever said, as the hon. member suggested in his introductory speech, that restrictions on bequests are not possible.

I did not say anything of that nature.

Of course, the hon. member did say it. He said—

This refers to the question of bequests—

Sir, the hon. member was present the other day when Mr. Chris Cilliers denied this, and I should like the hon. member to withdraw this statement for the purposes of record, when he has an opportunity to do so.

I am prepared to withdraw it if there is evidence to the contrary.

So that you may gossip about something else again.

As far as the question of bequests is concerned, it is after all a fact that any person who draws up a testament to-day, consults somebody in this regard. After all, this is being admitted generally. Hon. members on that side say that there is no problem, but during the past week I had a case where, by way of testamentary bequest, land had been subdivided into two units. Both brothers received a piece of land, neither of which constituted an economic unit. This person applied for financing, but could not obtain it. Just imagine the frustration! If the testator had consulted somebody in this connection in good time, then, surely, he would not have bequeathed the land to both sons. Do not tell me that there is no problem. Sir, there is another problem. We know that the education of the child is being adapted to-day to the future he determines for himself. If a testator realizes in good time that one of his sons is going to farm but that the other one is going to follow an academic or technical career, he will act accordingly in good time. But, Sir, what is happening to-day? Both sons must become farmers, both of the study agriculture, and then they find later on that neither of them can farm. There is a legion of problems in regard to this matter, and I say the sooner we provide the necessary guidance by way of legislation—in view of the fact that people do consult other people when they draw up testaments—the better.

Such a great deal is being said about freedom of the individual. We heard the same arguments in regard to the Soil Conservation Act. At that stage the hon. member for Newton Park also said that we were interfering with the freedom of the individual. What happened? The whole of South Africa accepted the Soil Conservation Act. Freedom is dear to all of us, but when freedom is abused to the detriment of the country, it is, after all, necessary that it should be curbed. For that reason it is necessary that legislation be passed from time to time in order to combat malpractices. To a lesser or greater extent any piece of legislation interferes with the freedom of the individual. There is no legislation which does not do this. The same argument is being used by the Opposition from time to time. The Opposition hoped to be able to make political capital out of the Soil Conservation Act, but it has fallen flat, and the same thing will happen in regard to this legislation. As regards education, I want to say this to hon. members on that side: Leave the education process in the hands of organized agriculture; they will attend to it, for they endorse this legislation. They will educate the farmers properly; chaos will not result in the ranks of our farmers. Sir, our problem is a three-fold one. Our problem is economic, our problem is agricultural and our problem is social, and hon. members of the Opposition know this. For that reason we do not hesitate to introduce legislation which will definitely ensure that in the future a more sound farming community will be created on this southernmost point of Africa.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet seemed to have started his speech rather late when he picked up the notes which he had prepared for his speech this evening. He seemed to have missed the point entirely as far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park is concerned because, Sir, there are three points in the amendment. The first point is that the Bill confers far-reaching powers on the Minister; the second is that it leaves the State free to acquire good agricultural land and the third point is that it lays down no criteria serving as a basis for the Minister’s decision to grant or refuse applications to subdivide land. This is a specific point made by the hon. member in his amendment and which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet appears to have missed altogether.

Sir, he said that the policy of this side of the House was “laat maar loop”. But, Sir, that is absolute nonsense. We already have legislation in South Africa to-day which controls to a very considerable extent the right of the farmer to subdivide his ground. The whole complaint of this side of the House has been that the hon. the Deputy Minister the Minister and the Department have had in their hands powers which they can use and which they should have used to control land, while they were in the process of preparing the sort of survey referred to by the hon. member for Walmer, i.e. an ecological survey which would have allowed them to plan South Africa on a rational, reasonable basis. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that by failing to do that, by failing to prepare a plan which would have been reasonable and acceptable to the farming community and to all the people in South Africa, he has let loose upon South Africa a land rush such as we have not seen for many years, whereby subdivision has been embarked upon by people in a mad scramble to get that subdivision accepted by the Surveyor-General and by the Deeds Offices just in order to cash in because they know that sooner or later this Minister is going to put a limit on the subdivision of ground. Sir, I can tell you that there are farms throughout the length and breadth of Natal— certainly in the areas that I know—which are being subdivided into 50 acres and which would not have been subdivided if they had not known that this Minister was coming with this kind of legislation. I am quite certain that if the Minister had done his homework properly and if the Department had been in a position to come at the right time with legislation to control subdivision in some way or other, that would not have happened. In fact, what the Department has done is to destroy, for the purposes of farming, more agricultural land by forcing subdivision than they can now save in terms of this Bill.

Sir, it was done simply because they have not approached this thing in the right fashion; they have not come in the right spirit and they have not seen the problem in the right perspective. It is typical of the attitude of the Nationalist Party that they come with an administrative measure in an attempt to meet an economic problem. That is the whole policy of the Nationalist Party; this applies to their Bantu policy and every policy of theirs. Whenever there is an economic problem facing South Africa, they come forward with laws and laws giving powers into the hands of Minister after Minister. In no single case have they yet been able to meet the problems that face us here in South Africa, and they have succeeded even less in this case. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet says that of course we have all the people we need to make this measure work, but where is the Soil Conservation Act really being applied to-day in South Africa in the way in which it ought to be applied, with extension officers in every single area?

You are losing contact.

Sir, will the hon. member tell me what the vacancy position is as far as soil conservation extension officers are concerned. Have we got the extension officers we want to make the Soil Conservation Act work in South Africa?

Never.

Is the Soil Conservation Act not being implemented?

No.

Have we got the soil conservation officers to do it? Sir, the hon. member’s zip is stuck; he can neither say “yes” nor “no”. The hon. member mentioned the Natal Provincial Administration. The Provincial Administration, without any kind of urging from the hon. member or the Department or the Deputy Minister or anybody else, took powers upon itself to control beyond the 50 acre limit the subdivision of ground, because of the rush let loose upon the farming community by this Minister. Sir, we have got the power now, and our whole attitude towards this legislation is …

That there is no problem.

No, let the hon. member not come along with that kind of story. We say very clearly in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park that this Bill confers upon the Minister far-reaching powers with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land, which needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual. Sir, I wish to say a few words on that point this evening. I have said that this is an economic problem. The farming community are facing over-production and they are facing price problems. Sir, reference has been made here to the price of wool in 1951-’52. With the price of wattle as it was in 1956, there were no uneconomic units in the wattle industry in Natal. Everything depends upon the criterion which is taken at a particular point of time. The whole implementation of this Act is going to come down to a continual series of changes on the part of the Department and on the part of the Deputy Minister as to what position they are going to take to-day, as to what position they are going to take in ten years’ time and as to what position they are going to take in twenty years’ time. There is no absolute standard that can be laid down as to what is an economic unit and what is not, because it depends merely on the price that the farmer is receiving for his product to-day. Any kind of outside influence, such as a relaxation of interest rates in England, for instance, which might have the effect of driving up the wool price in our country, would influence the day-to-day decisions made by the hon. the Minister.

Sir, the restrictions which the Minister is going to impose, as our amendment says, needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual. I believe that the hon. the Minister has got to accept certain problems in relation to this particular legislation. It has been mentioned by an earlier speaker that there are people in the towns who have a longing to possess ground in the countryside. In my particular constituency, virtually the whole of the constituency is a resort area. We are blessed with the best trout fishing in South Africa, whether you go to Underberg, whether you go to Mooi River or wherever you go. We have a tarred road which will be going through to Underberg within a year and a half. We are going to have a tremendous pressure on ground in that area from people living in towns who wish to possess a little piece of ground where they can have a holiday home or a weekend home. Sir, the problem is going to come and the hon. the Minister is going to have to face it. Either he is going to have to zone certain areas in which subdivision can take place, or else he is going to be absolutely flooded out with individual applications which will each have to be considered on their merits. In this area there are people who are prepared to sell their ground. This is some of the best agricultural ground in South Africa and there are some of the best farmers in South Africa. But this is to-day not merely an agricultural area; it is a resort area. It is something which is to-day becoming more and more important in the lives of the people at large.

And who is making money out of it?

The hon. member asks who is making money out of it. Will he tell me that this Government will go to the stage where they will deny a landowner the right to make money out of his ground and prohibit him from selling his land even at an unreasonably high price if he can get a willing buyer and he is a willing seller?

You put the question whether the Government is going to prohibit a man from selling his land when he can find a buyer. If the purchaser is an Indian, is your party in favour of allowing that man to sell his land to him?

My party says that the person who is the owner of ground, provided he obeys the laws of the land which are in force at the time, is entitled to sell his land. To-day a person is entitled to sell his ground provided he subdivides it into areas of a certain size which is restricted; there is a minimum size to which he may subdivide his ground. But the ground is his own personal possession and I want to say this. A farmer’s land is his only asset and if the hon. the Deputy Minister is now going to limit by administrative means the value of the land and prohibit the transactions which exist in a free society between willing buyers and willing sellers, he will place a limit on the land that the farmer has and he will destroy all the creditworthiness of the entire farming industry throughout the whole of South Africa, because he will say that within certain limits a person may subdivide and may sell certain portions of ground but beyond certain limits he may not be able to do so.

What will your limits be?

Let me say now that the farmers have been living for the last 10 years on the increased value of their ground. This is the one thing which has kept the farming industry creditworthy, the fact that their ground has been increasing in value year after year. What will happen to it now I do not know, but what I am saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he will create more problems for the farmers than he will solve by this particular piece of legislation because he is interfering in the normal commercial transactions in land.

Do you want to permit the farmers to subdivide freely?

There are certain limits which now obtain and which have served their purpose, which this Minister has forced beyond the limits of reasonableness by foreshadowing legislation of this nature. We accepted in the farming community that there shall be limits, that 50 acres was the limit below which you could not subdivide. That has been increased administratively to 150 acres in Natal by the action of the Natal Provincial Administration. But the point I want to make is that in many cases you have farmers who are heavily in debt, who can subdivide and cut off a certain small portion of their farms and pay off their bonds. They can find a willing buyer in a person living in the town who wants to buy a place in the country.

But then you take that land out of production.

In certain cases you take it out of production and in certain cases you can double and triple the production that can come from that piece of ground. I say that in our particular area 10 years ago an economic unit would have been about 2,000 acres. It was accepted that you could not really farm on much less than that, but to-day it has been proved by farmer after farmer that by the injection of capital a person coming from town who has the money, and who can invest his money in a piece of ground of about 600 acres, can get a very good return. He may not get his capital back in his lifetime, but he will leave a unit to his son which is a very rewarding farming enterprise. This is something which the Minister would have said 10 years ago is not an economic unit and he would not have allowed that. But what is happening to-day—I speak with specific reference to Natal because I am not really very familiar with the other areas—is that you find an intensification, a narrowing down of the sizes of farms and a far higher capital investment. You find people making a very successful living on farms which only five years ago would have been regarded as uneconomic units. This comes back to the same old story that you can only go on a day-to-day basis with our present knowledge and nowhere in the Bill does the Minister say what criterion of any sort he is going to accept. He merely referred in his introductory speech to the ordinary farmer on the ordinary piece of ground at the ordinary price. I feel that this Bill goes far beyond what the Minister is attempting to achieve. He is interfering to-day with the market for the farmer’s only asset, his land. That is his capital that he has to work with and nowhere else in South Africa do you find a man’s capital being interfered with an controlled by the State in the way that this Bill now tries to do. This is something which we are opposed to.

The hon. member for Ladybrand made the point that the subdivision of land leads to soil erosion. I say that in our area it has led to the intensification of far better farming on smaller units because money has been put into those areas which the ordinary farmer cannot afford. It happens time and again in Natal that a farmer has a farm which is too big for him to develop because he cannot afford the massive injection of capital that has to be put into it in the form of fertilizer, etc., in order to realize the true potential of that farm.

Such a farmer will be allowed to subdivide.

The hon. the Minister says he will be allowed to subdivide.

On what criterion?

The Minister will have it in his sole control, or on the advice of some members of the public whom he will appoint, to decide whether this shall happen or not. It is not the normal commerce of the market place. The Minister will decide and that will have an effect on the price the farmer may obtain for his ground because there is now already in the back of everybody’s mind who wants to buy land, the inhibiting factor that they now have to get the permission of the Minister. We believe that this is something which is undesirable. It is something which takes too much power over the lives of the individuals of the farming community. I was impressed by some of the evidence which Mr. Sevenster gave before the commission when he said that education would play a vital part in persuading the farmers so that by testamentary disposition they do not subdivide their ground into uneconomic units. I believe that the Minister, if he was serious about this, if he had got around, to getting his plan ready before he came into the House with legislation, whereby an area could have been zoned into whatever he thought would be an economic unit would have been able to do away with the provision in this Bill which now reaches out and affects not only what a man may do with his land in his lifetime but into the very grave where he lies. I believe this is a very far-reaching provision indeed.

Do not talk such nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is in the law. If a man leaves land which is not economic in the opinion of the committee or the Minister, his executor shall be required to sell up and dispose of the assets, and share them among the heirs. [Interjection.] The hon. member may think I am being dramatic about it, but I think it is very serious: it is a serious infringement on the rights of the farmer. If it is the desire of the Minister to avoid the problem, there are other and better ways of doing it than the one the Minister has adopted.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet mentioned the agricultural unions. Many of us on this side of the House, as on that side of the House, have been for many years involved in organized agriculture and what the unions want, is legislation which will be practical, which can be carried out and which will achieve the objects the Deputy Minister has set out. As far as we are concerned, this is not the sort of legislation which the Deputy Minister or we ourselves or the agricultural unions, when they finally get down to analysing it, will be satisfied with.

There is one further point, and that is the question of the control of the Department of Planning. That department sits like a vulture over the whole picture of South Africa. Every development that takes place in South Africa has to be referred to the Department of Planning, and I would like to ask the Deputy Minister what part that department is going to play here. Of course the hon. member for Potchefstroom says the Department of Agriculture can take care of this; they have the staff and are able to proceed with the planning. But I do not believe that the Deputy Minister and his department will escape the clutches of the Department of Planning. Somewhere or other and sooner or later there will be a clash between those two departments. It has to happen because this Minister now has to define certain areas for certain purposes. [Interjections.] We are merely looking at the problems which hon. members opposite are storing up for the future. There is going to be a clash and I would like to ask the Deputy Minister what he is going to do about it.

The hon. member for Mooi River, who has just resumed his seat, came along here with the ridiculous argument that, because the Minister had now introduced this legislation, a tremendous increase in the subdivision of our land had suddenly taken place. But surely that cannot be any argument. In other words, may one never come along to this House with legislation, for fear that all manner of malpractices will result from the announcement of such legislation. In the second place he also made mention of the fact that this Government makes laws for everything. His party would probably want to govern without legislation when they come into power one day, which is certainly not an imminent probability. A third matter he touched upon involved his plea for land in his constituency to be put aside now for “holiday homes”. However, he admits that that land is at present being occupied by good farmers, people who are pursuing their calling along sound lines. But then immediately afterwards he advocates that we should allow those people to cut up their land for “holiday homes”. Those are now the people who are accusing us on this side of (he House of driving the farmers from the land. He just wants to do it in a different way, but in the meantime he is driving our farmers from the land.

Sir, permit me to quote a few extracts from a speech that was made in this House—

Mr. Speaker, if the dignity of your position did not prohibit me from asking you a riddle, I would have asked you to guess who made this speech. I believe that you would not have been able to do so. This speech was made on 2nd February, 1962, by the hon. member for Newton Park. That same hon. member stood up here the other day and said the following—

Eight years ago there was a problem, but now we are exaggerating the problem. Then he continued by saying—

That is the peg he is hanging this legislation on, as if legislation is never introduced that interferes to a certain extent with the individual’s rights. He continued by saying—

Eight years ago this was the cause of agricultural impoverishment. Now he asks us what the causes are and where the problem now suddenly comes from. He continued by saying—

Eight years ago he admitted that this problem was being experienced to an increasing extent, and that our farms were becoming too small. To-day he is asking where the problem is. “Which one of the two is in fact the problem?” He asked. What has now become of the farmers who cut up their farms and allow dozens of sons to farm on small pieces of land? Eight years ago he regarded the system of inheritance as one of the greatest problems in the subdivision of agricultural land. He continued by saying—

The hon. member for Mooi River wants us to allow these people to continue getting rid of their land. We may not keep that land for the farmer. We must have it cut up into “holiday farms”. That is his solution to the problem.

One asks oneself why, eight years ago, that hon. member adopted the standpoint I have just quoted here, but now takes up an altogether contradictory standpoint in this debate? In 1962 there was no by-election in Natal. Neither was there a provincial election at hand. Now in 1970 there are such elections. Now he wants to go along to Natal again, and to the country districts, and make the farmers believe that it is this Government that is driving the small farmers from his land. He then wants to present this legislation as an example of how the Government is preventing small farmers from remaining on their land. Up to now the United Party has consistently refused to discuss, in this debate, the principle embodied in this legislation. I now want to put a pertinent question to hon. members, and I shall be glad if one of them would stand up and reply to it. The question is whether the Opposition is satisfied that agricultural land should be cut up into manifestly uneconomic units? Do they deny that this is happening? We must receive a reply to those two questions, because it is our view that the Opposition is refusing to face up to the cardinal principles embodied in this legislation. This legislation is a positive step in the right direction. But the Opposition refuses to accept it. They hide behind all kinds of smoke-screens, but the central and cardinal principle, of whether our agricultural land should be cut up or not, they do not touch upon.

But it has already been cut up.

It has not already been cut up. Hon. members are hiding behind the Physical Planning Act which was only made applicable to certain areas. That is the position, and even the Opposition can understand that these powers certainly come more within the Province of the Ministry of Agriculture than the Ministry of Planning. The Ministry of Agriculture has the staff to carry out the investigations necessary for the implementation of this legislation. We must bear in mind that, relatively speaking, South Africa is a poor agricultural country. If we consider that only 10 per cent of its total surface area is under cultivation, with the added possibility of a further 5 per cent, and that 66 per cent of the total surface area of the Republic gets less than 20 inches of rain a year, it goes without saying that we must protect our land as if it were a valuable jewel. We cannot afford to have it cut up injudiciously into unproductive units. This injudicious cutting up of agricultural land facilitates the most wasteful exploitation imaginable. And this problem is no recent one. It is not a problem that was discovered eight years ago, as the hon. member for Newton Park wanted to imply the other day. Between 1906 and 1908 there was already a Transvaal Poverty Commission which expressed itself as follows about this matter. I quote (translation) —

As far back as 1906 they realized that a malpractice was developing and that this would have to be checked. On 21st April, 1937, the then Minister of Lands, in his Second-Reading Speech on the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Bill (Hansard Vol. 30, column 5146) expressed himself as follows—

Where are they now?

Where have the farms gone? That is what I am asking the member.

Where are the poor Whites now?

They went to the cities and sought a livelihood there.

We took care of that.

Is that what you advocate? Do you advocate that these people should leave their farms for the cities? I am asking you the question?

That is precisely what you are advocating.

It is not what I am advocating. But I shall continue to quote—

As far back as 1937 the United Party Government of the time saw that something was wrong and that it had to be put right. There was also the Carnegie Commission. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to that, i.e. that this subdivision of agricultural land gave rise to a large extent to our poor white question in the country districts at the time. The Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act was, in fact, a direct result of that commission’s report. During the Second Reading of that Bill the Minister of Lands said the following—

Here we are now coming along 33 years later and taking those other steps. But now the Opposition is asking us, why the haste? The then hon. Minister continued by saying—

The National Party, which was the Official Opposition of the time, then moved an amendment to the Second Reading, because they felt that the Bill did not go far enough. They felt that it had not combated the injudicious subdivision of agricultural land. Now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along and asks: “If the Government itself could drag on the matter for six years, eight since 1962, I cannot understand that the urgency has now become so great that the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that legislation has become necessary.” This problem is as old as agriculture itself. Now the impression is being created here that this problem was only discovered during the past eight years. Government after Government tried to take steps to deal with this problem. Since 1937, 33 years have elapsed before we have now once more come along with steps to tackle this kanker at its roots. Numerous steps have been taken in the meantime. However, it was found that the steps were either impracticable or that they did not deal with the problem as desired. However, this approach by the United Party is typical. They say that if there is a problem it should please pass them by. They want no part in its solution, but they expect it to come right by itself. That is exactly what the hon. member for East London (City) said. He said that it would come right by itself. How could it come right by itself if certain steps are not taken against it. How will it come right if one has people pleading for agricultural land to be cut up into “holiday farms”? The United Party is not adopting this standpoint in the interests of the country or in the interests of agriculture. They pose as friends of our agriculturists, but they are adopting this attitude with a view to the election, because they are blissfully under the impression that it is the popular attitude to adopt. They think that it would be the popular thing to be able to tell the agriculturists: We do not have any part in these restrictions that are being place on you.

The Opposition’s amendment to this measure does not concern the principle. They are complaining about the far-reaching powers being granted to the Minister. They are not arguing about the principle. This measure most certainly does not embody more far-reaching powers than the 1937 Act. Not in the least. That legislation even gave the Minister expropriation powers. The Opposition supported the transfer of certain powers to the Provincial Council to prohibit subdivisions under 25 morgen. However, now they come along with another argument as well, i.e. that no norm or standard is being laid down prescribing to the Minister what an economic unit is, or what it is not. The hon. the Minister has given an adequate reply to this, but I want to say that in my constituency there is one district where 80 per cent of the farming units are smaller than 2,000 morgen. In the neighbouring district, Middelburg, which was also quoted here, it was determined that an economic unit is 3,000 morgen. In the Kat River Valley, which has some of the best agricultural land under irrigation in our country, there are up to 30 owners farming on one morgen of land. Thirty people are the registered owners of one morgen of land. Those conditions must be dealt with. Those conditions must be prevented from ever occurring again in the future. There is a tendency, with the Opposition in particular, for an economic unit to be linked to its size or even to its yield per morgen. Although these are certainly important criteria, their value is no more than relative. An economic unit cannot be measured on the basis of a mathematical formula. Neither is the concept “economic unit” definable for the purposes of legislation, because, as was rightly indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, so many factors play a part that one simply cannot define it in legal terms. Laying down a norm for a particular unit, because each case will be treated on its merits, must of necessity be left in the hands of the hon. the Minister and his advisers. From the nature of the case it is surely clear that the Minister who is worth his salt will use his powers with great judgment and circumspection. Each application will definitely be treated on its merits, with consideration being given to all the circumstances surrounding that case. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be asked to make difficult and very delicate decisions in this connection. I also believe that he will apply those powers being given to him with great care and circumspection. There will be people who are perhaps going to suffer as a result of this, and there will be people who will feel that they are being unfairly treated in terms of the powers being given to the Minister, but this is no strange phenomenon. For the sake of a few exceptions we cannot allow this evil, the cutting up of our agricultural land, to continue. Instead of the Opposition criticizing the hon. the Minister, they ought to congratulate him on this positive step forward which is being taken to check the subdivision of our agricultural land. An evil cannot simply be allowed to continue because of the existence of certain practical problems in combating it. If this were to be the case, half of our legislation would simply never be placed on the Statute Book. This evil must be combated and here is an opportunity for us to serve South Africa and to serve our descendants to whom we owe a great responsibility.

In conclusion I want to say that there is only one justification for the subdivision of agricultural land. It must only take place with a view to increasing the production of that land. I believe that to be the criterion which the hon. the Minister will have to apply most strictly when deciding whether he is going to allow a subdivision or not.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to an interjection which I made here, the hon. member for Cradock destroyed his entire argument. He said that (here were no more poor Whites on the farms, but that they were in fact to be found in the cities now. If that is in fact the case, I see no reason for this legislation which is before the House this evening. In addition, the hon. member quoted from a speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park during the discussion of a private motion of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, the present Deputy Minister of Transport. The motion was in connection with the appointment of a commission on the takeover of certain rights from provincial councils. The paragraph which is of importance, reads as follows—

The motion which was under discussion at the time, read as follows—

This motion and what is being envisaged by this Bill are two entirely different matters. The motion dealt with a commission which had to investigate the matter. This commission was appointed and submitted a report. It is doubtful whether the commission would in fact have supported this legislation. If I were the hon. member for Cradock I would have refrained from participating in this debate, for in his constituency it is a thorny problem. He knows that too, just as well as I do. He also said that the position in the Kat River Valley is so bad that there are 30 owners on one morgen of land. That I admit, Sir, but this legislation does not cover such a situation. This legislation concerns the future. There is not a single word in this entire Bill which deals with the consolidation of uneconomic units.

What about the Agricultural Credit Act?

Why does it not work in that hon. member’s constituency? Has it been applied yet? If we already have such an Act, is it necessary to pass another Act to control the matter in future? Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet may as well keep quiet, because he has never yet seen that Act being applied. It was applied many years ago in Vlekpoort and Doringhoek in the Hofmeyr district, but one can see no results from the consolidation of those parts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention four reasons for our being opposed to this Bill. The first reason is that it contains no definition or description of what an uneconomic unit is. Before we can get that definition and description, an ecological survey of the entire Republic of South Africa will, as the hon. members for Walmer and Mooi River also said, have to be made. Before that is done, we cannot apply this Bill. The Minister himself is not a miracle-worker. I have great respect for the hon. the Minister who is handling this legislation to-day, but we cannot expect him to be a Solomon and in addition to that a computer, in order to ascertain what parts should be subdivided and what parts should not be subdivided. Take for example my own district of Alexandria. Let me ask the hon. member for Gnaff-Reinet who knows so much about agriculture: What is an economic unit in the Alexandria district? Is it 50 morgen, or is it 100 moreen or 2,000 morgen, or is it 5,000 morgen, or is it all of these?

Concern yourself with your own constituency.

Yes, but then the hon. member must also concern himself about his own constituency. Thee is irrigation land, grazing land, agricultural land and dryland. There are various types of soil in one district. There are mountain ranges which change the rainfall. All these things must be determined before we can pass such a Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have time to reply to questions. The only province in the Republic in which a full-scale ecological survey has been made—and it has not yet been completed—is the province of Natal. In the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal this has not yet been done. Surveys are not only necessary in the ecological sphere, but also in the socio-economic sphere, in order to find out what kind of labour is available. The economic exploitation of a farm depends, of course, on that as well. It is a fact that some kinds of labour are better than others. They may be more reliable. Some places do not need labour, while other places, where a different kind of farming is practised, may need a great deal of labour. These things must all be worked out before one can determine what an uneconomic unit is. Now we are placing the right to make such a determination in the hands of one man. I feel sorry for him. He will not be able to determine this. He will always be in trouble.

The second reason why we cannot support this Bill is that there is no basis on which the Minister can take his decision. In the third place the Bill makes no provision, as I told the hon. member for Cradock, for the consolidation of existing uneconomic units. The existing uneconomic units are at present the curse of South Africa. We have heard about the speculators. The speculators climbed in a long time ago, and cut up every piece of land they could lay their hands on.

They are doing it every day.

Yes, that is true. Take for example the coastal area from Cape Town to the north coast of Durban. Every possible piece of land there has already been bought up. That land has already been subdivided. The applications have already been made and the land has already been surveyed. The hon. the Minister said that there was a large number of these uneconomic units in the Transvaal, but that the Physical Planning Act was applicable there. Why has that Act not been used to counteract the subdivision? In terms of that Act the Minister of Planning has the power to control it. Is it necessary now to bring further legislation before the House? Sir, I cannot see why it is necessary. Our farmers cannot see why it is necessary.

There is still another reason why we are opposed to this Bill. It also concerns the exemption of the Bantu Trust lands. I know that the Department of Bantu Administration has done its best as far as those lands are concerned. However, those lands are overloaded with people and animals. Those lands are completely overgrazed. They are filled to overflowing. They are now being exempted from the provisions of this legislation. It is the most uneconomic agricultural land in the Republic to-day. That the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration must admit. If we consider that land from an agricultural point of view, we find that it is approximately one-fiftieth as productive as a piece of land of the same size in the white area. However, those lands are being exempted from the provisions of this legislation, and large tracts of these Bantu areas contain our water sources. We could still perhaps have brought ourselves to accept this Bill if there had been similar legislation which protected that land in the Bantu areas against uneconomic subdivision as well, and which applied soil conservation strictly in those areas. What is happening now is that the soil there is being washed away to the ocean, and that our dams are silting up. That is another sound reason for our being opposed to this legislation. There should at least be a similar scheme to apply soil conservation in the Bantu areas. I do not know whether hon. members thought deeply about this Bill. Suppose a farm in the Sundays River Valley were to come onto the market to-day. To-day the Sundays River Valley is feeling the pressure of the drought. Suppose there were a farm of 100 morgen of irrigation land there, and this came onto the market and was subdivided into 50-morgen pieces. If it came to the attention of the hon. the Minister, he would say that it was uneconomic. But just wait a few years until the water from the Orange River scheme comes through, or until the Mentz Dam is full again. If that farm were then subdivided into four parts of 25 morgen each and the matter referred to the Minister, it would be an economic proposition, because a farm of 25 morgen under irrigation in the Sundays River Valley is highly economic. The same applies to other parts of the country. This kind of comparison will be made by the man on the farm. I cannot say the man in the street, but it will be made by the man on the farm. It is not only the hon. the Minister who is going to have a hard time and suffer as a result of this Bill, but every member of this House who represents a rural constituency as well for those dissatisfied farmers will be down on them. They will put pressure on them to use their influence to remedy the position. In addition, there will be litigation in the courts of this country if such things happen, and they are going to happen. In The Argus of 8th August there was a photo of Mr. Flip du Plessis “Where he stands among the littered carcases of sheep and buck that have died of starvation on his farm near Prince Albert”. That is what his farm looks like to-day, but give him a few years’ rainfall, and his will be an economic unit again. I do not know how large his farm is. It may be a farm of 5,000 morgen. If he wanted to subdivide his farm to-day, it would be uneconomic, but after a few years of good rains such a subdivision would be economic again. How are those people going to feel?

That will never happen.

Yes, it will definitely give rise to court cases. Has anybody ever thought of the extra costs for the individual? We know that to-day there are high costs involved in the transfer of land by legacy as a result of the letters written by one attorney to another. With whom is the Minister going to negotiate? It is going to be an attorney either in Pretoria or in Cape Town. This means more letters and even more money which the seller and the buyer will have to spend in the form of attorneys’ fees, which are already high enough. I am saying this with all due respect for my friends and colleagues in this House who are jurists. It simply means extra costs for the individual. Did anybody think of that? I then come to the other point I want to make. There were quotations here of what happened in 1932 and in 1959, but I can assure the House that this tendency to cut up farms is almost something of the past. In any case, this applies to legacies. The clause on legacies can be omitted entirely. Where a farmer has two sons to-day who both want to go farming, the tendency is to purchase another farm, or he will say to his sons: “It is impossible to subdivide the farm. One of you must become an attorney or a doctor.” That is how the sensible farmer goes to work to-day. Is there to-day so little faith in the farmer in South Africa that it can be said that he does not do this? That is the tendency to-day. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that he recently had a case of a farmer who subdivided his farm into two uneconomic units. Were they really uneconomic units? The farmers are still farming there, and I know it is very dry in Graaff-Reinet.

Yes, it is.

The hon. member says they are still farming there. Where are they getting the money to farm with? Was the subdivision economic or uneconomic? This is one example out of how many farmers? I have been watching the situation in Graaff-Reinet over the past few years, and it is very dry there. If they are still farming there, the units must really be economic, because they do not get their money from the Land Bank, nor can they get it from the Department of Agricultural Credit. They get their money from a normal bank at a high rate of interest, and they are still farming on those farms. If the hon. member had said that they had left their farms, I would perhaps have been able to understand it, but the hon. member said that they were still there. No, we cannot accept this Bill.

I come now to another aspect of the matter. I want to refer to the exemptions right at the beginning of the Bill. One of the exemptions is a health committee. Has it ever occurred to anyone that this is perhaps a loophole in the Bill, because in the Cape we have something called a divisional council. Almost every divisional council in the Cape functions as a health committee. In other words, if one could find a clever advocate, he can talk a hole right through this provision because he could argue that a divisional council is in fact a health committee. This is a fact, because the divisional council controls midwives, district surgeons, clinics, etc. They function in fact as a health committee. As far as the Cape is concerned, the entire Bill can be circumvented if a good attorney, such as the hon. member for Musgrave here, were to go to court and argue the matter. We cannot therefore accept this legislation.

It was mentioned here that the Bill is very necessary, but we do have the Physical Planning Act. The administrations have the necessary control. Small subdivisions do not take place without the consent of the Administrators. I know that to-day they are very strict about this in the Cape.

What about a unit of 25 morgen?

Sometimes a unit of 25 morgen is a very economic unit. I can take that hon. member to Elgin this weekend and there I will show him a farm of 5 morgen which shows a net profit of R15,000 annually.

And in the Karroo?

In the Karroo it is perhaps 5,000 morgen. Is the hon. member so afraid of the Karroo? The Karroo farmer must look after himself, just as that farmer in Elgin who is farming on 5 morgen must look after himself. If he can find proper markets, and if he receives the support of the Government and knows where he is going to sell his produce, he is well away. If a farmer is still on his farm and he knows where he is going to sell his produce and that he will get a good price for it, it is not necessary to be afraid. What happened to the wool farmers? There sits a wool farmer, and he is looking at me. He knows what happened. The price fell and he is now farming on an uneconomic unit. If the price of wool goes up again after a year or two, then he will once again be a land baron, and have an economic unit. The same applies to chicory, eggs, milk, butter, etc. Give the farmer a market and he will be completely economic. Stop interfering in his private affairs, his will and his legacies. Let the farmer carry on by himself. He can cope with his own affairs. The hon. the Minister knows that in my constituency there are farmers who are farming on a completely uneconomic basis because of the drought. But just give us good rains and all that money which they borrowed from the Department of Agricultural Credit, will soon be paid back. They will not buy new motor cars. They will become economic again. I think this legislation is nothing but legislation of fear which is being forced on the Government owing to their inability to cope with the drought and to help the farmers. It is as a result of their inability to plan and to supply the necessary water, transport and markets. I am asking that this legislation should please be dropped, I am asking this House to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park.